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
Thank you WereSpielChequers for writing so clearly and concisely what I have been struggling to put into words for some days.
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
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
Hoi, Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and you make that plain in what you say. The problem with bias is that it has consequences in how you approach issues. When Wikipedia "consensus" has it that we do not collaborate with Wikidata, it follows that you will not consider linking blue and red wiki links to Wikidata items and not to Wikipedia titles. From a Wikipedia point of view it is perfectly acceptable but no longer a great choice. From a Wikimedia point of view, not considering options shows that there is no consideration for our overall goal; sharing in the sum of all knowledge.
Wikimedia has multiple projects and we will have more impact when we collaborate. Commons is searchable in any and all languages thanks to Special:MediaSearch [1], when we expose it on every Wikipedia, it will be easier to illustrate Wikipedias. Wikidata can rid Wikipedia of much of its false friends problem and it can ensure that lists are better maintained. Magnus has shown that this is true even for English Wikipedia and as always English Wikipedia is only one of the Wikipedias.
When Wikipedia is mentioned, English Wikipedia is implied. It has something like 50% of our traffic and it does represent less than 50% or our target audience. I am all for improving the marketing of our projects but the bias for and the toxicity of English Wikipedia makes me oppose it. In essence, it is English Wikipedia that has to polish up its act, accept opposing points of view from others before it becomes reasonable to accept it as a flagship. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap&q=boo...
On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 23:06, 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and you make that plain in what you say.
This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is completely unwarranted.[1] You've been doing it repeatedly. Please stop.
[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false. He has nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
Hoi, Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on what has been expressed?
For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished Wikimedian who I respect.
When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and you make that plain in what you say.
This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is completely unwarranted.[1] You've been doing it repeatedly. Please stop.
[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false. He has nearly 500,000 edits on Commons. _______________________________________________ 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
It's not rocket science, ask an advertising/PR consulting company what they think about renaming, they are going to go with the easiest option that's the best known identity. It's a no brainer exercise of take the money and run.
There is more to this community/movement than its choice of name, to get to those aspects and come up with something new is an exercise that no PR/advertising company wants to take on without substantial outlay and healthy profit because failure will be remembered long after the last cheque is cashed. You only need to look at how the outcome of Alphabet/Google naming to realise that deeper meanings exist. Wikipedia is more than just a brand outside the movement, it's synonymous with it being a community, with trusted knowledge, and significantly something that somehow worked when everything the experts assumed about collaboration said it shouldn't.
Yes we know the board can do whatever they want, call themselves whatever they want, the question has always been should they?, even then they should have known not to.
The Wikimedia Foundation will always be a distant second to Wikipedia even if they try to take on the name Wikipedia, which is as it should be as Wikipedia is not about the Board or Foundation both of whom are there to only support the projects. It's beholden upon us as community members to grow the community, to grow the content , and ensure its quality.... the Foundation is there to provide the support/foundations we need to do our part. While the Board is there to ensure that the WMF acts within the bounds of its scope and complies with its legal requirements as a charity.
WMF and the Board are just the pilot and tug boat whos knowledge is meant to keep us off the rocks, tug boats dont take on the name of the ship they have their own identity.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 18:36, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on what has been expressed?
For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished Wikimedian who I respect.
When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
and
you make that plain in what you say.
This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is completely unwarranted.[1] You've been doing it repeatedly. Please
stop.
[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false. He has nearly 500,000 edits on Commons. _______________________________________________ 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
Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not identify a cure. Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
Hoi, Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on what has been expressed?
For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished Wikimedian who I respect.
When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and you make that plain in what you say.
This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is completely unwarranted.[1] You've been doing it repeatedly. Please stop.
[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false. He has nearly 500,000 edits on Commons. _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, Dunning and Kruger have nothing to do with it; I am perfectly able to get it wrong. What you do is dismissive and you do not make a point. That makes it a fail by default. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 13:58, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not identify a cure. Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
Hoi, Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on what has been expressed?
For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished Wikimedian who I respect.
When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
and
you make that plain in what you say.
This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is completely unwarranted.[1] You've been doing it repeatedly. Please
stop.
[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false. He has nearly 500,000 edits on Commons. _______________________________________________ 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
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on what has been expressed?
For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished Wikimedian who I respect.
When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them. Thanks, GerardM
I think the problem is that you appear to have misread what he wrote, or maybe confused him with someone else entirely. Or are you replying, in this thread, to something he wrote in another? As it stands, his comment suggests that the WMF can and perhaps should change its name to something "suitable for the parent of all projects, not just Wikipedia. " The point being, as I read it, that other solutions to that problem may be available and the survey neglects to touch on them at all.
Nothing in that sounds like an en.wp-centric view that one project should be the flagship for all projects and that should be reflected in the brand. Exactly the opposite.
This is the issue with imputing motives to individuals who haven't stated them; you may be wrong, and if you are wrong, you may offend your target or others.
Agreed.
Gerard, WSC is a fantastic advocate for our projects, I recall us working together on the first Commons based editathon many years ago, it was a privilege to become friends with someone genuinely passionate for public education and open knowledge.
These personal comments are misleading and hostile.
Fae
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 10:43, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and you make that plain in what you say.
This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is completely unwarranted.[1] You've been doing it repeatedly. Please stop.
[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false. He has nearly 500,000 edits on Commons. _______________________________________________ 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