Lee Daniel Crocker-
I don't see how it's acceptable for us to agree to any conditions that affect our prerogatives for software use. We need to use whatever software best suits our purposes. WikiTeX is nice work, and we may very well end up using it or something similar.
Of course we're not going to install WikiTeX if we decide that there's a better option, but that seems unlikely. WikiTeX is one of the most requested features from our users. What has been holding up its setup are not criticisms of its functionality, but security considerations. As I see it, if we do this, the Board will ask Brion, as a paid Wikimedia employee, to assist Peter in the security review and evaluation of WikiTeX and if, and only if, it meets our needs and our strict security requirements, it's going to be installed. Peter is working on a chroot-jail based approach already, which should help to address the concerns about possible shell escapes in certain LaTeX macros.
I would never want to make compromises about security or freedom of choice. This is more a matter of exchanging favors within the limits of sanity.
Secondly, what's wrong with good old fashioned plain-English multiple word names for things like "Wikimedia Schools Project" or "Wikimedia Offline" or something?
Wikimedia is not an English language project, for starters. This makes it necessary for English language derived names like Wiktionary to be localized, which then leads to confusion when you go to a domain like pl.wiktionary.org and end up on a site called Wikisłownik. Of course, to a certain extent, you will never be able to avoid this, but at least in the Latin languages, you can strive for a name which doesn't require localization. Wiktionary is not too bad because it's still a neologism, whereas something like "Wikimedia Dictionary" would be much worse.
Secondly, if you want a fully descriptive name, this would make the name unwieldy and impractical. "Wikimedia Computer Assisted Learning, Teaching, Certification and Index of Resources" would obviously be unacceptable. You can try making a nice acronym out of it, but then you end up with the English language problem mentioned above.
A short and unique name is also useful for searching the project and marketing it. That is why companies, including those working in academia, come up with short and catchy names for their products. Anything unsexy or unwieldy will not be found or linked as frequently as something short and memorable. You can trust capitalism when it comes to the mechanisms of meme optimization.
Finally, consistency is important. We have an established naming scheme -- our projects have unique names that usually begin with "Wiki-" -- and in order to maintain our corporate identity, new projects should follow the same pattern. (Incidentally, I named the "Wikimedia Commons" using a different pattern because it is not a regular Wikimedia project, but an umbrella project used by all others. Regardless, it is often abbreviated as "Wikicommons", indicating a strong desire of users to have names following this pattern..)
FWIW, the "cute" part of "Wikisophia" is not "-sophia", but "Wiki", and we're pretty much stuck with that no matter what we do.
Erik