I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the same time, I
aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to so many people inside our
community that doing it without a plan to give safety (not only legal, as their lives
could be compromised) is a bigger danger than the benefits it causes.
2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde
<reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com>)m>):
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between
them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I
do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com wrote:
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz
<ajraddatz(a)gmail.com> a
scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the
Foundation killed by the usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no
assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also
try to get buy-in from
key
community groups *before* you start consulting,
and use them as part of
the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs.
the community and turns
into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting
community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in
Wikipedia - Framgate - I
believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the
"Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best,
Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
> 18:25:
>
> > I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used
to
> > assume that our opinion would be asked
in a structured way.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
all
> > > the demonstrable facts, perhaps
the community should now respond
with
> > > a completely unambiguous RFC on
meta so there can be no doubt?
> > >
> > > Something along the lines of:
> > > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
"Wikipedia"
> > > and projects like Wikimedia
Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
WMF.
> > > Do you support or oppose this
rebranding programme?"
> > >
> > > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
discussion
> >
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
> > > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There
is
> > > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
Rather
> >
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > spent money had impact and "value".
> >
> > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word
"collaboration"
when
> > > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
history
> >
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
>
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr(a)wikimedia.org
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I agree with Pine.
> > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > > proposition.
> > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
that
> it
> > is
> > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
it
> is
> > > > sometimes necessary).
> > > > Have other options even been considered?
> > > >
> > > > -speaking in my own name here-
> > > >
> > > > Diane
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
>
> > > > Hello Zack,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > > >
> > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> > considerable
> > > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve
our
> > > > > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears
to
omit
is
> > > that,
> > > > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
> > opposition
> > > to
> > > > > the rebranding proposal.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> > > "considerable
> > > > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what
appears
to
be
> > > considerable opposition?
> > >
> > >
> > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
that
> > > > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding
the
> > > > > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and
two
of
> the
> > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
those
> > > > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
> the
> > RfC,
> > > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pine
> > > > >
> > > > > (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune
<zmccune(a)wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN
design
> > > process for
> > > > > > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion
group,
or
> > > watch
> > > > > for
> > > > > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens
of
> > > affiliates,
> > > > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and
Meta-Wiki,
I
am
> > > pleased
> > > > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030
movement
> brand
> > > > > strategy
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
> > > contributors and
> > > > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reducing confusion
> > > > > > 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Protecting reputation
> > > > > > 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Supporting sister projects
> > > > > > 4.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> > > > > > 5.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Supporting movement growth
> > > > > > 6.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The process of change
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2].
You
> will
> > > see
> > > > > > examples of comments within each section, along with a
rough
> > > indication
> > > > > of
> > > > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to
each
theme.
> > > >
> > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
> > our
> > > > wide
> > > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
> > sign of
> > > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
> > maps”
> > > > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> > > tension
> > > > with each other.
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
> > and
> > > > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > > > > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria”
for
> > > assessing
> > > > > > branding systems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == Thanks ==
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf,
Wikipedia
> > > Education
> > > > > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
> > discussions
> > > > > during
> > > > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues
Elena
> >
Lappen,
> > > > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
> of
> > this
> > > > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> >
> > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
> > > > > perspectives and insights.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > == Next steps and staying involved ==
> > > > >
> > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
> > > appetite
> > > > > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we
believe
that
> > > > critical feedback on the
proposal offers direct guidance for
> precisely
> > > what
> > > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
> > these
> > > > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
> who
> > > > > approved continuing these efforts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
> > > brand
> > > > > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will
use
> > > “Wikipedia”
> > > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN
> > for
> > > > > affiliates.
> > > > >
> > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
> > of
> > > > > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand
during
> this
> > > > > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered,
and
we
> >
invite
> > > > you
> > > > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to
host
> > > this
> > > > > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
> discussions
> > > and
> > > > > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If
you
do
> not
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will
be
> > > happening
> > > > > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
> comments
> > > left
> > > > > on
> > > > > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all
important
> ideas
> > > and
> > > > > > updates originating from the brand network discussion will
be
> > shared
> > > > > > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will
take
> > > approximately
> > > > > 6
> > > > > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to
mailing
> lists,
> > > > > > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where
you
are
> > most
> > > > > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
> > > decide
> > > > if/when they opt in to using the new system.
> > > >
> > > > Yours,
> > > >
> > > > Zack
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
click
> the
> > gray
> > > > > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you
will be
able
> > to
> > > see
> > > > > > and access the brand network discussion category on the
Discuss
Space
> > > main
> > > > page.
> > > >
> > > > [4]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zack McCune (he/him)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Director of Brand
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
> > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: