Hi everyone -
First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners. Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia. Yes, it'll come as a shock to all of you <tongue-in-cheek> but there are people who don't know that Wikimedia is anything more than a mis-spelling of Wikipedia. </tongue-in-cheek>. When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
Did we think it would be "drahma free"? No. Of course not. But it was based on our best data and with nothing but the very best of intentions. Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable. I think that our data-driven approach has proven to be very successful this year, and this (hypothesize, test, measure, react) was in line with that method. Obviously, this topic was more sensitive than many other areas where we've taken this approach.
To anyone we offended, I offer my personal apologies.
With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say Wikimedia.
pb
_______________________ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
ofc: +1 415 839 6885 x6643 mobile: +1 918 200 WIKI (9454)
pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say Wikimedia.
Thank you. :-)
I think you and the fundraising team this year have done a much, much better job engaging and including the community than any past Wikimedia fundraiser. This definitely has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. Keep up the good work!
MZMcBride
Ah, see, straight dealing like this is what it takes to get me to donate :)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
On 09/12/2010 21:20, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
[...]thinking that we could manage to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia.
You are saying that it was intentional.
When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
If those people are only willing to donate to Wikipedia, they have the right to know that their money will instead go to or through the WMF. Pretending to be Wikipedia is not your right, and certainly not with the excuse of helping people to clarify their mind. If you want them to donate to the WMF and they don't do it because you think they don't know what it is, then inform them fairly and ask for their donation. This is a very borderline action, even if well-intended. A few seconds of ethical considerations would have prevented it. Why were they not taken? The goal of obtaining money cannot be an excuse for toying with the trust of donors. Once again it makes me wonder what the staff think Wikipedia, Wikimania and their community are. Shouldn't the uttermost respect be naturally expected?
My intend is not to accuse anybody. I'm assuming good faith but poor understanding of the nature of the wiki[p|m]edia communities.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org wrote:
When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
Thanks for the explanation. It seems some people assumed bad faith before, when really we can see it was just a good-natured attempt to deceive these people as to where their money would go.
Thanks Zack and Phillippe, I think you guys made the right call. This is exactly how Foundation action and community feedback should work. I think we all appreciate your quick response to our concerns. I disagree with any implication that your decision was in some way immoral; your perspectives are different but your reasoning is sound. I have faith in the Foundation staff and in this fundraiser team, and I think you've been doing a fantastic job so far. Keep up the good work.
Nathan
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. It seems some people assumed bad faith before, when really we can see it was just a good-natured attempt to deceive these people as to where their money would go.
Maybe you're trying to be funny, but could you not?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners. Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia. Yes, it'll come as a shock to all of you <tongue-in-cheek> but there are people who don't know that Wikimedia is anything more than a mis-spelling of Wikipedia. </tongue-in-cheek>. When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
Did we think it would be "drahma free"? No. Of course not. But it was based on our best data and with nothing but the very best of intentions. Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable. I think that our data-driven approach has proven to be very successful this year, and this (hypothesize, test, measure, react) was in line with that method. Obviously, this topic was more sensitive than many other areas where we've taken this approach.
Thank you for your detailed explanation. It isn't far from what I've imagined: most of us at the community remember the discussion on another recent CentralNotice "Work at Wiki[m|p]edia". So regardless of its evaluation, I guess most of us didn't doubt it was intended on a good faith to improve something. I'm happy to see you brave to admit it was more sensitive than you at the team had presumed, perhaps more sensitive work at wheresoever, and again, as a Wikiquotian & someone who is concerned with the linguistic diversity of this project, personally I appreciate your quick reaction to change it.
To anyone we offended, I offer my personal apologies.
For the record, I at least felt not offended ;)
With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say Wikimedia.
;) Again, thanks!
pb
Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
ofc: +1 415 839 6885 x6643 mobile: +1 918 200 WIKI (9454)
pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10 December 2010 00:20, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners. Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia. Yes, it'll come as a shock to all of you <tongue-in-cheek> but there are people who don't know that Wikimedia is anything more than a mis-spelling of Wikipedia. </tongue-in-cheek>. When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
How does using the wrong word clarify anything? I really don't understand your explanation. I know you weren't intentionally decieving people, but you were giving them false information. That almost always confuses rather than clarifies. (They may not know they are confused, but that's worse, not better.)
Did we think it would be "drahma free"? No. Of course not. But it was based on our best data and with nothing but the very best of intentions. Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable. I think that our data-driven approach has proven to be very successful this year, and this (hypothesize, test, measure, react) was in line with that method. Obviously, this topic was more sensitive than many other areas where we've taken this approach.
I'm all for a data-driven approach, but you need to consider all the data. There is more to the Wikimedia movement that raising funds. If A raises more money than B, that doesn't necessary mean that A is better. You need to consider the other effects of A compared to B. When you are just trying different fonts and pictures, that isn't an issue, but for more complicated changes it is.
I thought there was going to be a big change at the Foundation involving integrating fundraising with the rest of the movement's activities. That suggested to me that you all understood that you can't just consider raising money is isolation, but this recent incident seems to suggest otherwise. I am very confused...
To anyone we offended, I offer my personal apologies.
With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say Wikimedia.
That's progress, but it is still wrong. Sue is not the ED of Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am part of Wikimedia, but Sue is definitely not my boss (a fact of which she is undoubted very relieved!).
On 10 December 2010 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say Wikimedia.
That's progress, but it is still wrong. Sue is not the ED of Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am part of Wikimedia, but Sue is definitely not my boss (a fact of which she is undoubted very relieved!).
I've just thought: if you are concerned that "ED of Wikimedia Foundation" would be too confusing, how about "ED of our Foundation". It's accurate and avoids any wikimedia/wikipedia confusion.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org wrote:
When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
Are the donations which were made to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia, going to be restricted for use only by Wikipedia, or was this a bait and switch.
Maybe the people who say they'd "donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia" really do want to donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia.
Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable.
I didn't consider that possibility until you explained that the intention was to trick people into contributing to Wikimedia when they really wanted to contribute to Wikipedia.
Dear friends,
There should be nobody offended, and no apoligize is necessary. We try to deal with a complicated situation that would not exist if Wikipedia would be simply the product of Wikipedia Publishing House.
Whether the names amplify the problem, whether "Wikimedia" was a good name choice - maybe WMF should rename itself "The Wikipedia Foundation" and call Wiktionary "The Wikipedia Dictionary" and so on. Like the "Sprach-Brockhaus" was the dictionary of Brockhaus, they did not come up with a new name, totally intended.
But I don't believe that that matters much. There are similar problems in other movements. You can imagine what happened when the president of the Universal Esperanto Association proclamed that he wants to be the president of all Esperantists, causing many people stressing out that UEA is not the whole Esperanto movement and that the president is not their boss.
It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you can't donate to a website itself but only to the institution behind it. You also can't sue "Ebay the website", only "Ebay the company".
We had the name problem also in the Schulprojekt of Wikimedia Deutschland (we visit schools and explain about WP/M). Some of us present themselves as representatives of the "Wikipedia organization", others use the proper terms. Although I have obtained the reputation of being a terminological fetishist, I tend to keep things simple and say that I am from the "Wikipedia organization".
Sometimes I say that I am a representative of "Wikimedia, the organization behind Wikipedia". Someone even said that there would be nothing fraudulent if we present ourselves as representatives of the "offizieller Wikipedia-Förderverein" (official booster club; well, in German it sounds much more pompous).
Of course, it is always the best if you can take the time and explain about the relationship between WP and WM. In a fundraising letter addressed to the public that should be possible. And how to call the WMF ED? Some creative thinking is necessary. :-)
I enjoyed the "What's in a name" contribution by Erik today, by the way.
Kind regards Ziko
2010/12/10 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org wrote:
When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
Are the donations which were made to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia, going to be restricted for use only by Wikipedia, or was this a bait and switch.
Maybe the people who say they'd "donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia" really do want to donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia.
Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable.
I didn't consider that possibility until you explained that the intention was to trick people into contributing to Wikimedia when they really wanted to contribute to Wikipedia.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I was about to write a suggestion similar to the one indicated by Ziko van Dijk. I second it and recommend that the following be given serious consideration:
Change as soon as practically possible the naming of the Foundation to the "Wikipedia Foundation" and the naming of the projects to Wikipedia, Wikipedia Commons, Wikipedia Books, Wikipedia Wiktionary etc. That would simplify matters enormously while at the same time broadening the Wikipedia brand to all projects in a much more effective and comprehensible way.
"We" would of course still talk internally about Commons, Wikibooks, Wiktionary and so on for the sake of brevity.
It is never too late...
Regards, Sir48/Thyge, da:wiki
----- Original meddelelse -----
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com [mailto:zvandijk@googlemail.com] wrote: ....
Whether the names amplify the problem, whether "Wikimedia" was a good name choice - maybe WMF should rename itself "The Wikipedia Foundation" and call Wiktionary "The Wikipedia Dictionary" and so on.
At first thought, this proposal seemed like a "branding suicide", but considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing. It would also help avoid composed word that sometimes sound strange or are just plain weird in languages other than English.
Strainu
2010/12/10 dex2000@pc.dk:
I was about to write a suggestion similar to the one indicated by Ziko van Dijk. I second it and recommend that the following be given serious consideration:
Change as soon as practically possible the naming of the Foundation to the "Wikipedia Foundation" and the naming of the projects to Wikipedia, Wikipedia Commons, Wikipedia Books, Wikipedia Wiktionary etc. That would simplify matters enormously while at the same time broadening the Wikipedia brand to all projects in a much more effective and comprehensible way.
"We" would of course still talk internally about Commons, Wikibooks, Wiktionary and so on for the sake of brevity.
It is never too late...
Regards, Sir48/Thyge, da:wiki
----- Original meddelelse -----
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com [mailto:zvandijk@googlemail.com] wrote: ....
Whether the names amplify the problem, whether "Wikimedia" was a good name choice - maybe WMF should rename itself "The Wikipedia Foundation" and call Wiktionary "The Wikipedia Dictionary" and so on.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I also think that it is worth considering and that it's not a suicide, although other opinions are welcome.
I am mostly active in Wikipedia, but i am also quite active in Wikisource and Commons. I wouldn't be offended if Wikisource's name would change. When i talk about my biggest Wikisource project - Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar - i usually say that i do it in a "project affiliated with Wikipedia". I always do mention the name "Wikisource", but most people don't recognize it.
As for Commons - I would love to see it branded and marketed as a sophisticated competitor to Flickr and commercial stock photo agencies, but until that happens, most of us will probably think of it as the image repository for Wikipedia and the other projects and the general public doesn't even know it exists, even though everybody sees these images every day.
2010/12/10 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:
At first thought, this proposal seemed like a "branding suicide", but considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing. It would also help avoid composed word that sometimes sound strange or are just plain weird in languages other than English.
Strainu
2010/12/10 dex2000@pc.dk:
I was about to write a suggestion similar to the one indicated by Ziko van Dijk. I second it and recommend that the following be given serious consideration:
Change as soon as practically possible the naming of the Foundation to the "Wikipedia Foundation" and the naming of the projects to Wikipedia, Wikipedia Commons, Wikipedia Books, Wikipedia Wiktionary etc. That would simplify matters enormously while at the same time broadening the Wikipedia brand to all projects in a much more effective and comprehensible way.
"We" would of course still talk internally about Commons, Wikibooks, Wiktionary and so on for the sake of brevity.
It is never too late...
Regards, Sir48/Thyge, da:wiki
----- Original meddelelse -----
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com [mailto:zvandijk@googlemail.com] wrote: ....
Whether the names amplify the problem, whether "Wikimedia" was a good name choice - maybe WMF should rename itself "The Wikipedia Foundation" and call Wiktionary "The Wikipedia Dictionary" and so on.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Strainu, 10/12/2010 17:31:
At first thought, this proposal seemed like a "branding suicide", but considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing.
It's been discussed at length: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Brand_name_consolidation
Nemo
I'm aware of that discussion, but thanks for pointing to it. I do not, however, feel that it has been "discussed at length" since most of the discussion centers about a proposal to merge all projects into Wikipedia. That is rightly opposed as being harmful to the projects and also seems not to be doable for technical and licensing reasons.
My proposal about changing the name of the Foundation and put Wikipedia in front of the projects' names is in line with Erics excellent 2007-paper about "rethinking brands":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html]
It is a major task to communicate the setup around Wikimedia, Wikipedia and the projects to the entire world. It requires the effort to be focused and the message to be simple, and we are lucky to be able to use the Wikipedia brand as a motor for that.
I see that some people think about such a move as being purely a "marketing gimmick". That attitude fails to appreciate the enormous value of such "marketing" for donors, contributors, readers, and the distribution of knowledge in general. I.e. in short: For our mission.
A change of the naming of the Foundation and our projects does not interfere with the projects themselves. They will keep their present position, policies, and self-governance, but adding Wikipedia in front of their name in my judgement has a potential big benefit for them as well.
Regards, Sir48/Thyge
----- Original meddelelse -----
Fra: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com [mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com]
It's been discussed at length: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Brand_name_consolidation
Nemo
2010/12/10 < dex2000@pc.dk [compose.cgi?to=dex2000@pc.dk]>:
I was about to write a suggestion similar to the one indicated by Ziko van Dijk. I second it and recommend that the following be given serious consideration:
Change as soon as practically possible the naming of the Foundation to the "Wikipedia Foundation" and the naming of the projects to Wikipedia, Wikipedia Commons, Wikipedia Books, Wikipedia Wiktionary etc. That
would
simplify matters enormously while at the same time broadening the Wikipedia brand to all projects in a much more effective and comprehensible way. Regards, Sir48/Thyge, da:wiki
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org