On 5/15/07, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Calling Wikiversity "Wikipedia Learning" is not uncomfortable. It is wrong. It misrepresents what Wikiversity is, as if to say, Wikiversity is a subcatgegory of wikipedia whose purpose is to study what wikipedia has.
That depends on how you parse it, and there is a strong argument to be made that the general public will parse it differently from our core community. The kind of literal and semantic arguments found in this thread are unlikely to be made by people who identify "Wikipedia" with a broad notion of a source of knowledge, an online community, and an organization or company.
Moreover, one could hardly argue that the name "Wikiversity" is self-explanatory. It is not a university, it does not award degrees, etc. People understand it by visiting the website and looking at the materials there. I believe the name "Wikipedia Learning" is much more explanatory, and any initial misunderstanding (which any name can cause) will disappear as soon as people actually look at the contents.
In practice, it also fails to stand out amongst the numerous education/academic oriented sites, for example:
http://education.wikia.com/wiki/Wikiversity http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page http://www.wikieducator.org/Main_Page http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/Wikiversity http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome http://www.qedoc.org/en/index.php?title=Main_Page
Excuse me? You would seriously argue that "Wikipedia XY" does not stand out among those names? "Wikipedia" is the only name we have that has global recognition, orders of magnitude more so than any of the above. Wikiversity, on the other hand, is on equal footing with all of them.
A name is crucial and intrinsic to anything, anybody, anyone. To suggest changing the name for the sheer convenience in marketing in the short term, is to get the priorities wrong.
That's a straw man argument; the lines of reasoning (including the e-mail you responded to, most of which you ignored) are more complex than "sheer convenience in marketing". Nor are you proposing any realistic solutions to the problem Claus pointed out.