I concur with Phoebe and Philippe as well. I find this branding proposal
feels very dated; something that might have had currency several years ago,
but not really an advantage in the coming 10-15 years. There aren't a lot
of organizations that change their names to reflect their most prominent
brand; if one looks at the most recent "big tech" renaming, we saw Google
move to Alphabet, actually divorcing themselves from their keystone brand.
I suspect that, had the foundation originally been named the "Wikipedia
Foundation", we might very well be looking to change the name to something
more generic (like "Wikimedia Foundation") today. Given the longterm
strategic goal of being a broad and deep knowledge ecostructure, I think a
more generic name serves the movement better.
Much as I very much appreciate the time, energy and other resources that
have led to this proposal, there's not a lot of evidence of "value for
money" in proceeding, especially as a lot of the costs would devolve down
to affiliates that have much more pressing needs to meet with their limited
financial resources. I won't enter into any discussion about whether
certain of our projects should be left by the wayside, but I will note that
there are significant variations in the "popularity" of various projects
between language groups as well as cultural groups.
Risker/Anne
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:28, Philippe Beaudette <philippe(a)beaudette.me>
wrote:
As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've
been struggling to put
into words myself. And like she, I would have been excited about this
brand change several years ago. But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see
the need for that opportunity then. I think that moment has passed. I'm
not sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up
the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value
received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.
Best,
Philippe
(former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear all,
I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question
underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public
awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates
(as
opposed to the projects themselves)?
Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to
me
like it would help us in our core goals, of
recruiting editors and
content
to the *projects*. We do not typically use the
Wikimedia name to do
outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia.
(I
give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every
year; talking about
Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it.
So
I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here
either.
The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
*organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure.
We're
not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of
the Foundation does not
translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide
world
of free knowledge that we want to imagine --
including a future of our
projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
too, I am skeptical.
regards,
Phoebe
(former WMF trustee)
_______________________________________________
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>