Thanks WSC; elegantly put.
On survey process: seconding what others have said, if you have gotten ~1000 of a desired 4000 responses, and haven't asked two questions that you realize are essential, yes it is absolutely worth running a new survey w the new options.
You can even identify cross-survey-iteration correlation : after drafting an updated survey (and a banner for it) you could randomly offer 20% of participants the _old_ survey and use correlation there to infer a way to jointly interpret both versions.
S.
On Mon., Jun. 29, 2020, 4:35 a.m. Ariel Glenn WMF, ariel@wikimedia.org wrote:
I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the table, the options were narrowed to "Wikipedia plus some term" for survey purposes. While the survey is thus useful to see which Wikipedia-based name community members prefer most, it excludes the options "no change" and "change but not to a Wikipedia-based term".
It is possible that people crunching the numbers already know what percentages of the community(ies) support the other two options based on rfcs and so on. If this is so, it would be great for that information to be made public.
If however those numbers are not known, I would urge that an addendum to the survey be run that asks people to select one of the following; "no change", "new name containing the term Wikipedia", "new name not containing the term Wikipedia". I believe that even if this would cause the timeline to slip a little, it would be worth it.
Ariel "Wearing sporadic-volunteer hat" Glenn
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen... ?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Natalia,
I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to
be
designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
"No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I
am
not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of
the
WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a
relatively
harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have
been
my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured
child,
does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name,
don't
change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is
also a
position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
Regards
WereSpielChequers
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300 From: Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps Message-ID: < CAKt1n5oKs9e_vaez4LKizJrV_9p4OQjSCC26FvyVYKiP13yu7Q@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Dear all,
I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
of Trustees about the Brand Project.
Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
supposed
to
happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
were
the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our August meeting.
Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
the
project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
on
for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
needed,
and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
have
an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
option
like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
more
than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
survey
now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
will
not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
to
collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
on
whether to adopt them.
Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
- Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
review
and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
the
briefing on discussions happening;
- July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
posted publicly after the meeting;
- August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding,
not
about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
stop,
pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a
discussion
on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
- August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
about
the Brand project.
I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
renaming
[2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
position
of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and
that
some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are
also
some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and communication after them will address the concerns raised in the
letter.
Stay safe, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
[1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe