Send email. Thank you.
Pada tanggal Min, 15 Mar 2020 19.01, < wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org> menulis:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..." Today's Topics:
- Re: Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? (Aron Demian)
- Re: Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? (Gerard Meijssen)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Aron Demian aronmanning5@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 11:24:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive, unfortunately.
Aron
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other Wikipedias.
En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative. If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that
they
should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing communities of those projects for consideration. If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP community who have no authority over Commons. As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
Hoi, By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost
universally
but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project
of
a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in other languages is frustrated from within WMF. We could do a better
job, a
job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about
300
projects and make several good points about how people confuse
Wikipedia
with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
be
highly toxic". Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
using
the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously objected to? Something else that is not obvious? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
Hoi, Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as
a
unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300
projects
and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with English Wikipedia.
- Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for
projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
- New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia,
the
notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the
architecture
- It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than
Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
- In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English
notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly
requested
for use with Wikidata
- there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products.
Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose because we do not seek an audience for them
- even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is
really
good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other
languages.
It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may
be
that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to
share
in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not what English Wikipedia deems notable. Thanks, GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 11:46:33 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? Hoi, Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and sharing in the sum of all knowledge.
There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers. Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by bot.
When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was more relevant that an international perspective.
At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something about it. Well, I have been blogging about Wikimedia for the last 15 years [1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to make people see what is in front of them. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative. If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that
they
should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing communities of those projects for consideration. If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP community who have no authority over Commons. As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
Hoi, By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost
universally
but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project
of
a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in other languages is frustrated from within WMF. We could do a better
job, a
job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about
300
projects and make several good points about how people confuse
Wikipedia
with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
be
highly toxic". Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
using
the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously objected to? Something else that is not obvious? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
Hoi, Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as
a
unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300
projects
and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with English Wikipedia.
- Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for
projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
- New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia,
the
notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the
architecture
- It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than
Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
- In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English
notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly
requested
for use with Wikidata
- there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products.
Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose because we do not seek an audience for them
- even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is
really
good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other
languages.
It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may
be
that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to
share
in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not what English Wikipedia deems notable. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar ezar@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Everyone,
There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few
of
these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this
group
when your email went out.
As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing
with
the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2]
ideas
around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner
with
Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for
working
on
complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New
York
City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed
naming
convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design
for
movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will
be a
new
branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these
proposals,
Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has
already
been given, and has created a process with built-in community
involvement.
The process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online
with
97
volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers, foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the workshops, community participants were asked to break into small
groups
to
answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are
as a
movement.
Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came
out
of
the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the
one(s)
you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual
concepts
built or selected by workshop participants.
Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the
project
talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also
be
available on Meta starting next month.
Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one
single
concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around
naming
(expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They
are
scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in
Snøhetta's
open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of
the
channels mentioned.
https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-yo...
Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various
points
in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas
of
the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe
that
we
don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human
being
to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means
billions
of
people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals
the
movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us there.
Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at
brandingwikipedia.org
and
the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the
project
talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to
drop
us a
note at brandproject@wikimedia.org if you have questions.
Thanks!
Essie Zar
(from the movement brand identity project team)
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html
[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movemen...
- What is a concept?
A tool making the complex more understandable.
Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular definition in its context. By creating concepts we allow ourselves to acknowledge the complexity yet dare to step away from differences and
look
for similarities that binds it all together.
-- *Essie Zar* (she/her) Brand Manager 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@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
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
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org