Short quiz for all the Americans on this list: what do Bounty, Dawn, Pringles, Duracell and Lacoste have in common? If you think those are all strong brand names, then you're right. But how many would know that they all belong to the same company (Procter & Gamble)? I would venture a guess that not too many do. Or at least, to most people, it really doesn't matter. They don't buy the products because P&G makes them. <snip>
But I believe that is the problem we currently have! That list of brands don't market to the same target audiences, and they demonstrate few synergies between them so thay have no need to target similar markets directly, however eachof our 'products' *do* target the same people, and that means (imho) that we do need a much clearer "umbrella" to be visible 'out there'.
I would venture to say that the people who are eating pringles likely need to use duracells and bounty on a daily basis too. The fact that the same people are consuming multiple brands of different products does not mean that those products should be marketed in the same way. Some of the people who use Wikibooks or Wikisource are likely to be looking up things in Wikipedia too. However, just because the same person may use multiple wikis doesnt mean that they should be marketed the same way, or to the same target audience. Microsoft doesnt call it's office software "Windows Office", even though Windows is the stronger brand and the software only runs on that platform. Two different products, even if they are used in conjunction and made by the same company, are not generally well suited to being branded the same.
A further example; Answers.com runs "WikiAnswers". If we stick ad absurdam with our "Wiki...." convention then how many people will think that "WikiAnswers" is one of ours, when it isn't.
Or the way everything with an "i" prefix sounds like it's from Apple? Prefix confusion is nothing new, but the fact that wikipedia is a wiki, and that wikibooks is also a wiki means that they both should get to use that prefix. The difference of course is that wikibooks is not a "-pedia" and trying to apply it to wikibooks will only create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a domineering culture, and because it was the first project, many of the members there are in the habit of calling wikipedia simply "wiki". Notice how people refer to en.wikibooks to describe the english wikibooks, but nearly all wikimedians use the term "enwiki" to describe wikipedia. Doesnt help that this ambiguity is embedded in the software. The fact that the news media has picked up on wikipedian's jargon and refers to it as simply "wiki" is not so much a surprise as an obvious result.
We've lost the battle to call everything "Wiki...." and for the general internet population to realise which is 'ours' and which isn't. It will be a shame to lose some of the name recognition that the non-WP projects have gained - though it is clearly minimal so far
There was a time when the name recognition for wikipedia was minimal too. Projects take time to grow, but as the statistics graphs each month show us, the other projects are growing, and growing at a good rate. If Wikibooks isn't as big as wikipedia right now, I am inclined to say it's just a function of time. Wikibooks has seen adoption in small steps as individual classrooms join the project, As adoption gets more common, I expect we will see a time when entire universities are looking to wikibooks for texts. Imagine if some of our elementary school texts are adopted by an entire school district, or even by an entire US state? With the price of textbooks, it's not hard to see a market among improverished inner-city schools for free textbooks. I'm also inclined to say, assuming the OLPC project takes off, that there are plenty of children in impoverished areas that would benefit from downloading their textbooks from us for free.
If everything goes our way (and admittedly this dream is some ways off) It's not hard to imagine Wikibooks growing like wildfire, but what we need is more help, more marketing, and more recognition for the brand we already have. Wikibooks is in a very important stage of growth right now, and rebranding us now would be detrimental.
--Andrew Whitworth
_________________________________________________________________ Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the im Initiative now. Its free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
On 09/05/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has a domineering culture, and because it was the first project, many of the members there are in the habit of calling wikipedia simply "wiki". Notice how people refer to en.wikibooks to describe the english wikibooks, but nearly all wikimedians use the term "enwiki" to describe wikipedia. Doesnt help that this ambiguity is embedded in the software. The fact that the news media has picked up on wikipedian's jargon and refers to it as simply "wiki" is not so much a surprise as an obvious result.
This appears to be an undue assumption of malice on the part of the Wikipedia community.
The rest of the world, Wikipedia is the first they've heard of. So they shorten it as seems natural to them.
I would *hope* this slows down as office wikis become more common.
If everything goes our way (and admittedly this dream is some ways off) It's not hard to imagine Wikibooks growing like wildfire, but what we need is more help, more marketing, and more recognition for the brand we already have. Wikibooks is in a very important stage of growth right now, and rebranding us now would be detrimental.
It may be worth noting that there is no push whatsoever (that I have heard of) for an initiative such as this from any of the Wikipedias.
A lot of smaller projects seem to blame their woes on that big mean Wikipedia taking all the attention, evil bastards that they are. I suspect you should look to the people paying the attention.
- d.
On 09/05/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has a domineering culture, and because it was the first project, many of the members there are in the habit of calling wikipedia simply "wiki". Notice how people refer to en.wikibooks to describe the english wikibooks, but nearly all wikimedians use the term "enwiki" to describe wikipedia. Doesnt help that this ambiguity is embedded in the software. The fact that the news media has picked up on wikipedian's jargon and refers to it as simply "wiki" is not so much a surprise as an obvious result.
I'm really not convinced this is the case. "Wiki" as a proper noun for Wikipedia (English only or not) is very much an *external* thing; I see it a lot in emails written to us by outsiders, but rarely see it used internally by anyone actually involved with the projects. Indeed, it's something of a shibboleth...
(caveat - there's also "the wiki", which you get pretty often on and around enwp but is clearly a context-sensitive phrase; "the wiki [which we are discussing]", and could be used in reference to anything. enwiki and enwp are used interchangeably now, and are very much internal only - I really doubt any external use is based on our use of those terms)
"Wiki" as a proper noun is people encountering the almost unescapable behemoth that is Wikipedia, stripping off the bit that seems generic (-pedia) and assuming the rest is "their name". Because wikis are generally pretty low-profile and obscure, we're usually the first one most people encounter, and so they don't realise it's as much a generic term as -pedia is.
(Note the converse also happens - "a wikipedia" used to describe any wiki)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org