*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch for updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand strategy [1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
1.
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication of how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our wide movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in tension with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions during their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely what branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia” as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite you to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want to commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left on the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately 6 months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to decide if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space main page.
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that, according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC, I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch for updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand strategy [1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication of how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our wide movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in tension with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions during their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely what branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia” as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite you to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want to commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left on the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately 6 months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to decide if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space main page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that, according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC, I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
Hi Pine -
Thanks for your questions. We set out to measure community appetite for this change, knowing that it is something we share as our Movement's identity and therefore something that needs broad support. On Meta-Wiki, we shared our consultation metrics for assessing that support and/or opposition [1].
In assessing the positions and comments shared during this 4 month consultation, we noted that 38% of reviewing affiliates explicitly support the branding proposal (almost 2x our goal of 20%). We also measured that just 0.6% (57 people over more than 9,000 reached) of those reached during the consultation explicitly opposed the proposal, which relates to our benchmark that if "less than 20% oppose, we will consider the proposal to have strong support." Hence the language used in our recommendation. We will add the overall response metrics to Meta to document these outcomes.
Many of the reviewing parties identified things they would need to see within a new brand system to consider it for approval and adoption. That's what this next phase of collaboration allows!
yours,
- Zack
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
Measure community appetite
for change
20% of affiliates support
Less than 20% of informed community oppose
✓ 38% of reviewing affiliates support
✓ 0.6% of informed oppose (57 users oppose of ~9,000 reached)
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:19 PM Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that, according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the
RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process
for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors
and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign
of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that, according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC, I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it
is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
that,
according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition
to
the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of
the
three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the
RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
see
examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful
and
useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN
for
affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions
and
room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas
and
updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this fit of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019 à(s) 18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that
it
is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
that,
according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to
the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to
be
considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of
the
three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding
the
RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
see
examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful
and
useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN
for
affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions
and
room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas
and
updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community, no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up, no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to your stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from key community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this fit of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019 à(s) 18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that
it
is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it
is
sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
that,
according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to
the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to
be
considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
that
measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two
of
the
three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
those
measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding
the
RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist
in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and
useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe
that
critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN
for
affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during
this
consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and
room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do
not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you
are
most
comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power
to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to your stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from key community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
that
it
is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
it
is
sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve
our
movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit
is
that,
according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to
the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears
to
be
considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
that
measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding
the
rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two
of
the
three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
those
measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the
RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process for
> movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group,
or
watch
for > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > Hello all, > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
> several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I
am
pleased
> to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
strategy > [1]. > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors and
> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > 1. > > Reducing confusion > 2. > > Protecting reputation > 3. > > Supporting sister projects > 4. > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > 5. > > Supporting movement growth > 6. > > The process of change > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
> examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of > how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
> > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our
wide > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign of
> health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps”
> which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
tension > with each other. > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and
> useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
> branding systems. > > == Thanks == > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
> Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
> Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this
> consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
> perspectives and insights. > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite
> to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe
that
> critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these
> insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> approved continuing these efforts. > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand
> naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia” > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN
for
> affiliates. > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during
this
> consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to
host
this
> discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and
> room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do
not
want
to > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
> within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left
on > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
> updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6 > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
> Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you
are
most
> comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
decide > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > Yours, > > Zack > > [1] > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > [2] > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray
> "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be
able
to
see
> and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main > page. > > [4] > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > -- > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > Director of Brand > > 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
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used
to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
all
the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
with
a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
"Wikipedia"
and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
WMF.
Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
discussion
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
Rather
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
history
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
that
it
is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
it
is
sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hello Zack, > > Thank you for the report on Meta. > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
> support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve
our
> movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to
omit
is
that,
> according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to
> the rebranding proposal. > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
> support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what
appears
to
be
> considerable opposition? > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
that
> measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding
the
> rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and
two
of
the
> three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
those
> measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the
RfC,
> I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > Pine > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process for
> > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion
group,
or
watch
> for > > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
> > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki,
I
am
pleased
> > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
> strategy > > [1]. > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors and
> > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > > > 1. > > > > Reducing confusion > > 2. > > > > Protecting reputation > > 3. > > > > Supporting sister projects > > 4. > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > > 5. > > > > Supporting movement growth > > 6. > > > > The process of change > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
> > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
> of > > how many of the comments that we received were related to
each
theme.
> > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our
> wide > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign of
> > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps”
> > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> tension > > with each other. > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and
> > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
> > branding systems. > > > > == Thanks == > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
> > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
> during > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues
Elena
Lappen,
> > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this
> > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
> > perspectives and insights. > > > > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite
> > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we
believe
that
> > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
> what > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these
> > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> > approved continuing these efforts. > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand
> > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will
use
> “Wikipedia” > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN
for
> > affiliates. > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand
during
this
> > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and
we
invite
> you > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to
host
this
> > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and
> > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you
do
not
want
> to > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
> > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left
> on > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
> > updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
> 6 > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
> > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where
you
are
most
> > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
> decide > > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > > > Yours, > > > > Zack > > > > [1] > > > > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > > > > [2] > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > > > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray
> > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be
able
to
see
> > and access the brand network discussion category on the
Discuss
Space
> main > > page. > > > > [4] > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > > > > -- > > > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > > > Director of Brand > > > > 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>
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
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
I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger danger than the benefits it causes.
2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com):
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used
to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
all
the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
with
a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
"Wikipedia"
and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
WMF.
Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
discussion
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
Rather
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
history
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
that
it
is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
it
is
sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hello Zack, > > Thank you for the report on Meta. > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
> support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve
our
> movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to
omit
is
that,
> according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to
> the rebranding proposal. > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
> support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what
appears
to
be
> considerable opposition? > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
that
> measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding
the
> rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and
two
of
the
> three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
those
> measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the
RfC,
> I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > Pine > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process for
> > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion
group,
or
watch
> for > > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
> > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki,
I
am
pleased
> > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
> strategy > > [1]. > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors and
> > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > > > 1. > > > > Reducing confusion > > 2. > > > > Protecting reputation > > 3. > > > > Supporting sister projects > > 4. > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > > 5. > > > > Supporting movement growth > > 6. > > > > The process of change > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
> > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
> of > > how many of the comments that we received were related to
each
theme.
> > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our
> wide > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign of
> > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps”
> > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> tension > > with each other. > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and
> > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
> > branding systems. > > > > == Thanks == > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
> > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
> during > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues
Elena
Lappen,
> > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this
> > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
> > perspectives and insights. > > > > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite
> > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we
believe
that
> > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
> what > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these
> > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> > approved continuing these efforts. > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand
> > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will
use
> “Wikipedia” > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN
for
> > affiliates. > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand
during
this
> > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and
we
invite
> you > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to
host
this
> > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and
> > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you
do
not
want
> to > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
> > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left
> on > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
> > updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
> 6 > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
> > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where
you
are
most
> > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
> decide > > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > > > Yours, > > > > Zack > > > > [1] > > > > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > > > > [2] > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > > > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray
> > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be
able
to
see
> > and access the brand network discussion category on the
Discuss
Space
> main > > page. > > > > [4] > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > > > > -- > > > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > > > Director of Brand > > > > 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>
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
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
I think it's a fine idea. I know that nobody knows what "Wikimedia means", and see value to moving at least the Foundation's name towards a more recognizable brand.
I also see valid points being raised from the community, such as the distinction between Wikipedia and WikiBooks, -Versity, -Source, etc. Those projects are often very different from Wikipedia, and further work should be done to understand the impacts on brand perception if those very different projects use a more similar name. But overall, I think the idea is good.
What is bad is that this is another top-down change being apparently made entirely by WMF staff. The question is "how should we implement this idea that we have already come up with, and will implement anyway"? The question should have been brought forward much earlier in the form of "how can we improve our brand awareness". This idea could have been put forward and refined as part of that collaborative process. Or at least that's how it should have been done if the WMF cares about being a service organization.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
No need to mock me based on my apparent position on the issue. And I really don't see how it is desirable that the Foundation is willing to push ideas through without community support. Again, are they a top-down governance organization, or a service organization aimed at supporting and empowering the editing community and readership?
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:05 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger danger than the benefits it causes.
2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com>):
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate -
I
believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow
used
to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
all
the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
with
a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and
they
recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
"Wikipedia"
and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons"
to
ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
WMF.
Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
discussion
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
Rather
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness
that
comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and
less
credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from
embedded
bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove
the
spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
history
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Pine. > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the
rebranding
> proposition. > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward
(except
that
it
is > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards -
but
it
is
> sometimes necessary). > Have other options even been considered? > > -speaking in my own name here- > > Diane > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hello Zack, > > > > Thank you for the report on Meta. > > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to
improve
our
> > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to
omit
is
that, > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to > > the rebranding proposal. > > > > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what
appears
to
be
> > considerable opposition? > > > > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta
displays
that
> > measure community and affiliate support or opposition
regarding
the
> > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and
two
of
the > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was
using
those
> > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the
RfC, > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > > > Pine > > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN
design
process for > > > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion
group,
or
watch > > for > > > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens
of
affiliates, > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and
Meta-Wiki,
I
am
pleased > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030
movement
brand
> > strategy > > > [1]. > > > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > Reducing confusion > > > 2. > > > > > > Protecting reputation > > > 3. > > > > > > Supporting sister projects > > > 4. > > > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > > > 5. > > > > > > Supporting movement growth > > > 6. > > > > > > The process of change > > > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2].
You
will
see > > > examples of comments within each section, along with a
rough
indication > > of > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to
each
theme.
> > > > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our > > wide > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign of > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps” > > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> > tension > > > with each other. > > > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and > > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria”
for
assessing > > > branding systems. > > > > > > == Thanks == > > > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf,
Wikipedia
Education > > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
> > during > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues
Elena
Lappen, > > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this > > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> > > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and
offering
your
> > > perspectives and insights. > > > > > > > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite > > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we
believe
that
> > > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance
for
precisely > > what > > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these > > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> > > approved continuing these efforts. > > > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand > > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will
use
> > “Wikipedia” > > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will
be
OPT-IN
for > > > affiliates. > > > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand
during
this
> > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered,
and
we
invite > > you > > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space
to
host
this > > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and > > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If
you
do
not
want > > to > > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will
be
happening > > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left > > on > > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all
important
ideas
and > > > updates originating from the brand network discussion will
be
shared
> > > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately > > 6 > > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to
mailing
lists,
> > > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where
you
are
most > > > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
> > decide > > > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > Zack > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > > > > > > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray > > > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will
be
able
to
see > > > and access the brand network discussion category on the
Discuss
Space
> > main > > > page. > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > > > > > Director of Brand > > > > > > 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>
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
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
Pe sâmbătă, 7 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
I think it's a fine idea. I know that nobody knows what "Wikimedia means", and see value to moving at least the Foundation's name towards a more recognizable brand.
I also see valid points being raised from the community, such as the distinction between Wikipedia and WikiBooks, -Versity, -Source, etc. Those projects are often very different from Wikipedia, and further work should be done to understand the impacts on brand perception if those very different projects use a more similar name. But overall, I think the idea is good.
What is bad is that this is another top-down change being apparently made entirely by WMF staff. The question is "how should we implement this idea that we have already come up with, and will implement anyway"? The question should have been brought forward much earlier in the form of "how can we improve our brand awareness". This idea could have been put forward and refined as part of that collaborative process. Or at least that's how it should have been done if the WMF cares about being a service organization.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
No need to mock me based on my apparent position on the issue.
I was not mocking you. Maybe ":)" was not the most appropriate emoticon in the context, but when the WMF comes up with such grand plans the default line of thought should be the change will happen unless there is a huge push back from the community. In this case, the push back has been mild at best.
And I really
don't see how it is desirable that the Foundation is willing to push ideas through without community support.
I have come to realize that what the community *thinks* about our users and the reality can be a world apart. We are also adverse to change (by design, mostly). These things mean that sometimes courageous ideas will need to be pushed in spite of the vocal opposition of some particularly conservative members of the community.
Also, as I said, in this particular case the feedback has not been clearly negative, so I would not call the process as being "without community support". P
Again, are they a top-down governance organization, or a service organization aimed at supporting and empowering the editing community and readership?
Unfortunately right now more of the former. There is a significant number of employees that simply don't understand why they should wait for and listen to community feedback.
But employees can be replaced if there is enough will. The real danger comes from the strategy recommendations that explicitly ask for more coordination from the wmf regarding a range of subjects.
Strainu
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:05 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger danger than the benefits it causes.
2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com>):
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials
partners
the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship
between
them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard
it
is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the
WMF
using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits
to
your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in
from
key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part
of
the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and
turns
into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate
I
believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta,
6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow
used
to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived
from
all
> the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now
respond
with
> a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt? > > Something along the lines of: > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and
they
> recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
"Wikipedia"
> and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to
"Wikicommons"
to
> ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
WMF.
> Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?" > > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
discussion
> on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
> is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
Rather
> than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness
that
> comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case
without
> firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and
less
> credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from
embedded
> bias, especially considering the already banked investment in > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove
the
> spent money had impact and "value". > > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word
"collaboration"
when
> communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
history
> and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
> rather than holding open collegial discussion. > > Thanks, > Fae > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I agree with Pine. > > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the
rebranding
> > proposition. > > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward
(except
that
it > is > > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards -
but
it
is
> > sometimes necessary). > > Have other options even been considered? > > > > -speaking in my own name here- > > > > Diane > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > Hello Zack, > > > > > > Thank you for the report on Meta. > > > > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There
is
> considerable > > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to
improve
our
> > > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to
omit
is
> that, > > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition > to > > > the rebranding proposal. > > > > > > > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as
having
> "considerable > > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what
appears
to
be > > > considerable opposition? > > > > > > > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta
displays
that
> > > measure community and affiliate support or opposition
regarding
the
> > > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor
and
two
of
> the > > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was
using
those
> > > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the > RfC, > > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > > > > > Pine > > > > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
wrote: > > > > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN
design
> process for > > > > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion
group,
or
> watch > > > for > > > > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens
of
> affiliates, > > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and
Meta-Wiki,
I
am
> pleased > > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030
movement
brand
> > > strategy > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual > contributors and > > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > Reducing confusion > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > Protecting reputation > > > > 3. > > > > > > > > Supporting sister projects > > > > 4. > > > > > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > > > > 5. > > > > > > > > Supporting movement growth > > > > 6. > > > > > > > > The process of change > > > > > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2].
You
will
> see > > > > examples of comments within each section, along with a
rough
> indication > > > of > > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to
each
theme. > > > > > > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing
that
across
> our > > > wide > > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are
common
(and a
> sign of > > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
> maps” > > > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> > > tension > > > > with each other. > > > > > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
> and > > > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria”
for
> assessing > > > > branding systems. > > > > > > > > == Thanks == > > > > > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf,
Wikipedia
> Education > > > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions > > > during > > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues
Elena
> Lappen, > > > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted
extensive
parts
of > this > > > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> > > > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and
offering
your
> > > > perspectives and insights. > > > > > > > > > > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > > > > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
> appetite > > > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we
believe
that
> > > > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance
for
> precisely > > > what > > > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We
have
shared
> these > > > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who > > > > approved continuing these efforts. > > > > > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
> brand > > > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that
will
use
> > > “Wikipedia” > > > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will
be
OPT-IN
> for > > > > affiliates. > > > > > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network”
– a
group
of > > > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand
during
this
> > > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered,
and
we
> invite > > > you > > > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space
to
host
> this > > > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
> and > > > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If
you
do
not
> want > > > to > > > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will
be
> happening > > > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
> left > > > on > > > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all
important
ideas
> and > > > > updates originating from the brand network discussion
will
be
shared > > > > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will
take
> approximately > > > 6 > > > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to
mailing
lists,
> > > > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us
where
you
are
> most > > > > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have
the
power
to
> > > decide > > > > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > > > Zack > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > > > > > > > > > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network
and
click
the > gray > > > > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will
be
able
to > see > > > > and access the brand network discussion category on the
Discuss
Space > > > main > > > > page. > > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > > > > > > > Director of Brand > > > > > > > > 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>
> > > > -- > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
Hi all,
I think the problem arises from the lack of transparency about Wikimedia Foundation's intent to hire a consulting firm for a rebranding advice. This is a major thing that affects our entire movement and thousands of contributors who self-identify with the brand names that we currently have.
But since they put the rebranding on the front burner and have already spent money with no formal approval by the community, they are definitely ready to enforce it no matter what the community opines and how strong is the opposition built around it. The use of the ridiculous 20-per-cent metric explained previously in this thread strongly supports this.
To give you a better insight about what has happened, imagine that your family hire a consultant for an advice to change your personal name without even asking you if you give consent and afterwards they come with a proposed new name that might increase your career success. How would you feel is exactly our community's attitude towards this rebranding.
Best regards, Kiril
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 23:06 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger danger than the benefits it causes.
2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com>):
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate -
I
believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow
used
to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
all
the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
with
a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and
they
recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
"Wikipedia"
and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons"
to
ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
WMF.
Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
discussion
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
Rather
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness
that
comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and
less
credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from
embedded
bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove
the
spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
history
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Pine. > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the
rebranding
> proposition. > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward
(except
that
it
is > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards -
but
it
is
> sometimes necessary). > Have other options even been considered? > > -speaking in my own name here- > > Diane > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hello Zack, > > > > Thank you for the report on Meta. > > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to
improve
our
> > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to
omit
is
that, > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to > > the rebranding proposal. > > > > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what
appears
to
be
> > considerable opposition? > > > > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta
displays
that
> > measure community and affiliate support or opposition
regarding
the
> > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and
two
of
the > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was
using
those
> > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the
RfC, > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > > > Pine > > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN
design
process for > > > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion
group,
or
watch > > for > > > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens
of
affiliates, > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and
Meta-Wiki,
I
am
pleased > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030
movement
brand
> > strategy > > > [1]. > > > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > Reducing confusion > > > 2. > > > > > > Protecting reputation > > > 3. > > > > > > Supporting sister projects > > > 4. > > > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > > > 5. > > > > > > Supporting movement growth > > > 6. > > > > > > The process of change > > > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2].
You
will
see > > > examples of comments within each section, along with a
rough
indication > > of > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to
each
theme.
> > > > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our > > wide > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign of > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps” > > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> > tension > > > with each other. > > > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and > > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria”
for
assessing > > > branding systems. > > > > > > == Thanks == > > > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf,
Wikipedia
Education > > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
> > during > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues
Elena
Lappen, > > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this > > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> > > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and
offering
your
> > > perspectives and insights. > > > > > > > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite > > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we
believe
that
> > > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance
for
precisely > > what > > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these > > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> > > approved continuing these efforts. > > > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand > > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will
use
> > “Wikipedia” > > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will
be
OPT-IN
for > > > affiliates. > > > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand
during
this
> > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered,
and
we
invite > > you > > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space
to
host
this > > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and > > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If
you
do
not
want > > to > > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will
be
happening > > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left > > on > > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all
important
ideas
and > > > updates originating from the brand network discussion will
be
shared
> > > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately > > 6 > > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to
mailing
lists,
> > > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where
you
are
most > > > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
> > decide > > > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > Zack > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > > > > > > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray > > > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will
be
able
to
see > > > and access the brand network discussion category on the
Discuss
Space
> > main > > > page. > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > > > > > Director of Brand > > > > > > 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>
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
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
Now imagine trying to explain the difference between a chapter, the Foundation and the community when they have the same name...
Lodewijk
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:41 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
usual
atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
stakeholder
group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
your
stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
key
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate -
I
believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow
used
to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from
all
the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond
with
a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and
they
recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word
"Wikipedia"
and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons"
to
ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the
WMF.
Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every
discussion
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual.
Rather
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness
that
comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and
less
credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from
embedded
bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove
the
spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate
history
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Pine. > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the
rebranding
> proposition. > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward
(except
that
it
is > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards -
but
it
is
> sometimes necessary). > Have other options even been considered? > > -speaking in my own name here- > > Diane > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hello Zack, > > > > Thank you for the report on Meta. > > > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to
improve
our
> > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to
omit
is
that, > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to > > the rebranding proposal. > > > > > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what
appears
to
be
> > considerable opposition? > > > > > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta
displays
that
> > measure community and affiliate support or opposition
regarding
the
> > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and
two
of
the > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was
using
those
> > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the
RfC, > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
> > > > Pine > > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN
design
process for > > > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion
group,
or
watch > > for > > > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens
of
affiliates, > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and
Meta-Wiki,
I
am
pleased > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030
movement
brand
> > strategy > > > [1]. > > > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > Reducing confusion > > > 2. > > > > > > Protecting reputation > > > 3. > > > > > > Supporting sister projects > > > 4. > > > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > > > 5. > > > > > > Supporting movement growth > > > 6. > > > > > > The process of change > > > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2].
You
will
see > > > examples of comments within each section, along with a
rough
indication > > of > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to
each
theme.
> > > > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our > > wide > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign of > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps” > > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
> > tension > > > with each other. > > > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and > > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria”
for
assessing > > > branding systems. > > > > > > == Thanks == > > > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf,
Wikipedia
Education > > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
> > during > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues
Elena
Lappen, > > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this > > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> > > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and
offering
your
> > > perspectives and insights. > > > > > > > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite > > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we
believe
that
> > > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance
for
precisely > > what > > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these > > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> > > approved continuing these efforts. > > > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand > > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will
use
> > “Wikipedia” > > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will
be
OPT-IN
for > > > affiliates. > > > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand
during
this
> > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered,
and
we
invite > > you > > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space
to
host
this > > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and > > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If
you
do
not
want > > to > > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will
be
happening > > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left > > on > > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all
important
ideas
and > > > updates originating from the brand network discussion will
be
shared
> > > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately > > 6 > > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to
mailing
lists,
> > > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where
you
are
most > > > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
> > decide > > > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > Zack > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > > > > > > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray > > > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will
be
able
to
see > > > and access the brand network discussion category on the
Discuss
Space
> > main > > > page. > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > > > > > Director of Brand > > > > > > 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>
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
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
I too think that an RfC is a good option here. I suggest having multiple questions in the RfC. Questions could include, "What should the organization that is currently known as the Wikimedia Foundation be named?", "Should there be a unifying brand for the online projects such as Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons?", "If there is a unifying brand for the online projects then what should it be?", "Should there be a unifying brand for affiliates?", and "If there is a unifying brand for affiliates then what should it be?"
Overall I think that the report on Meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results makes for good reading as background information for an RfC.
I want to caution against trying to make too many big decisions at once. There is already a strategy process underway which has consumed a considerable number of volunteer hours, and the community has precious little capacity relative to normal operational demands without this ongoing strategy process being piled on top of everything else that people want the community to do. There seems to be infinite demand for free skilled labor, but a finite supply of that same labor. I encourage both WMF and the community to think carefully about which questions to prioritize so that we are not all overstretched and a significant number of problems slip through the cracks because collectively there were not adequate human resources to thoughtfully address so many questions in a narrow period of time and develop consensus regarding how to move forward.
The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not authorized the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under Wikipedia's name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps with the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while so we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF had a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed sections were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding KPIs, but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics of some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would work. Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than 1800 users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong support, 1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed will be considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening elsewhere, eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a discussion on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision making, for branding or otherwise.)
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך שבת, 7 בספט׳ 2019 ב-20:54 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com>:
I too think that an RfC is a good option here. I suggest having multiple questions in the RfC. Questions could include, "What should the organization that is currently known as the Wikimedia Foundation be named?", "Should there be a unifying brand for the online projects such as Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons?", "If there is a unifying brand for the online projects then what should it be?", "Should there be a unifying brand for affiliates?", and "If there is a unifying brand for affiliates then what should it be?"
Overall I think that the report on Meta < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
makes for good reading as background information for an RfC.
I want to caution against trying to make too many big decisions at once. There is already a strategy process underway which has consumed a considerable number of volunteer hours, and the community has precious little capacity relative to normal operational demands without this ongoing strategy process being piled on top of everything else that people want the community to do. There seems to be infinite demand for free skilled labor, but a finite supply of that same labor. I encourage both WMF and the community to think carefully about which questions to prioritize so that we are not all overstretched and a significant number of problems slip through the cracks because collectively there were not adequate human resources to thoughtfully address so many questions in a narrow period of time and develop consensus regarding how to move forward.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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 crosses my mind that I would think that some of the WMF office staff would also be getting tired of crisis, conflict, and unwelcome surprises. These types of problems are unlikely to ever be fully prevented, but I would think that the parade of difficulties in the past few months would also be testing the patience of at least some people inside of WMF who might like to not have a new earthquake to deal with on what seems like a biweekly basis.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 17:59 Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not authorized the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under Wikipedia's name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps with the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while so we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF had a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed sections were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding KPIs, but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics of some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would work. Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than 1800 users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong support, 1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed will be considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening elsewhere, eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a discussion on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision making, for branding or otherwise.)
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך שבת, 7 בספט׳ 2019 ב-20:54 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com>:
I too think that an RfC is a good option here. I suggest having multiple questions in the RfC. Questions could include, "What should the organization that is currently known as the Wikimedia Foundation be named?", "Should there be a unifying brand for the online projects such
as
Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons?", "If there is a unifying
brand
for the online projects then what should it be?", "Should there be a unifying brand for affiliates?", and "If there is a unifying brand for affiliates then what should it be?"
Overall I think that the report on Meta <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
makes for good reading as background information for an RfC.
I want to caution against trying to make too many big decisions at once. There is already a strategy process underway which has consumed a considerable number of volunteer hours, and the community has precious little capacity relative to normal operational demands without this
ongoing
strategy process being piled on top of everything else that people want
the
community to do. There seems to be infinite demand for free skilled
labor,
but a finite supply of that same labor. I encourage both WMF and the community to think carefully about which questions to prioritize so that
we
are not all overstretched and a significant number of problems slip
through
the cracks because collectively there were not adequate human resources
to
thoughtfully address so many questions in a narrow period of time and develop consensus regarding how to move forward.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
I only started following WMF stuff more closely around 2 years ago, but I don't remember it being this permanent state of crisis as it is now, with an ever increasing - now, apparently at an accelerating pace too - detachment from the onwiki communities. This is tiresome and distracting for those of us who are volunteers at the Wikimedia projects, but it's certainly painful too for the WMF staff.
What's going on with the WMF?
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 9/09/2019 à(s) 07:59:
It crosses my mind that I would think that some of the WMF office staff would also be getting tired of crisis, conflict, and unwelcome surprises. These types of problems are unlikely to ever be fully prevented, but I would think that the parade of difficulties in the past few months would also be testing the patience of at least some people inside of WMF who might like to not have a new earthquake to deal with on what seems like a biweekly basis.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 17:59 Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not authorized the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under Wikipedia's name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps
with
the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while
so
we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF
had
a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed
sections
were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding
KPIs,
but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics
of
some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would work. Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than 1800 users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong support, 1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed will
be
considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening
elsewhere,
eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a
discussion
on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision making, for branding or otherwise.)
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך שבת, 7 בספט׳ 2019 ב-20:54 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com
>:
I too think that an RfC is a good option here. I suggest having
multiple
questions in the RfC. Questions could include, "What should the organization that is currently known as the Wikimedia Foundation be named?", "Should there be a unifying brand for the online projects such
as
Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons?", "If there is a unifying
brand
for the online projects then what should it be?", "Should there be a unifying brand for affiliates?", and "If there is a unifying brand for affiliates then what should it be?"
Overall I think that the report on Meta <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
makes for good reading as background information for an RfC.
I want to caution against trying to make too many big decisions at
once.
There is already a strategy process underway which has consumed a considerable number of volunteer hours, and the community has precious little capacity relative to normal operational demands without this
ongoing
strategy process being piled on top of everything else that people want
the
community to do. There seems to be infinite demand for free skilled
labor,
but a finite supply of that same labor. I encourage both WMF and the community to think carefully about which questions to prioritize so
that
we
are not all overstretched and a significant number of problems slip
through
the cracks because collectively there were not adequate human resources
to
thoughtfully address so many questions in a narrow period of time and develop consensus regarding how to move forward.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Their approach hasn't changed. There are maybe just more ongoing projects than there were in the past. But yes, it can't be fun for anyone involved.
I briefly discussed some of this above, but I'll list a few options that the WMF could take to make this process less consistently bad: 1. Determine benefits of any project to the editing and reading community. If there are none, that may be fine, but consider balancing it out with a concurrent project that is providing benefit to those communities. *Frame any project in terms of the desired benefits*. 2. Find allies and adopt a joint approach. If you are running projects that will benefit some part of the editing and reading community, find people who would benefit, involve them in the entire project lifecycle, and utilize them in communications and consultations to move the conversation away from community vs. WMF. 3. Engage much earlier than is currently done. Rather than always bringing "solutions" to the community (that the community invariably doesn't like), bring problems to the community and ask how these problems could be solved. You can even structure the problem statement and questions in a way that will get at your ideal solution. Again though, it depends on whether this is actually a problem for the editing/reading communities. 4. Do more for your primary stakeholders! Every area of the projects has outstanding technical and social issues that the communities want solved and that haven't been worked on for years. In my area of interest, we have been asking for better CAPTCHAs for years. Dial back the grants program a bit and use the money to provide services for the communities that you are supposed to be serving. If you do this, then the community appetite to accept some WMF-initiated changes will be greater once we think that you are actually on our side. 5. Bring the community, or select community members, into project governance structures. Make a steering committee, host elections for community seats, use a combination appointed/elected model, etc for major program areas. This is what the community-selected board seats should do, except the organization is too large for the board to function in that way.
Adrian Raddatz
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:51 AM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
I only started following WMF stuff more closely around 2 years ago, but I don't remember it being this permanent state of crisis as it is now, with an ever increasing - now, apparently at an accelerating pace too - detachment from the onwiki communities. This is tiresome and distracting for those of us who are volunteers at the Wikimedia projects, but it's certainly painful too for the WMF staff.
What's going on with the WMF?
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 9/09/2019 à(s) 07:59:
It crosses my mind that I would think that some of the WMF office staff would also be getting tired of crisis, conflict, and unwelcome surprises. These types of problems are unlikely to ever be fully prevented, but I would think that the parade of difficulties in the past few months would also be testing the patience of at least some people inside of WMF who might like to not have a new earthquake to deal with on what seems like a biweekly basis.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 17:59 Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
The broad proposal was clearly rejected. The community has not
authorized
the Wikimedia Foundation to let any organization speak under
Wikipedia's
name. If a formal RfC is to be held to make a final decision (perhaps
with
the question subdivided, per Pine), I recommend delaying it for a while
so
we might have a chance for some respite from permanent crisis mode.
The summary, in my opinion, is not adequate, and skips many of the most significant arguments. (The talk page itself skips some, after the WMF
had
a large portion of the talk page moved to a different page, including a string of "strong oppose"s. Those who participated in the removed
sections
were not counted in the WMF's count, for some reason.)
I do not understand what is going on within the Foundation regarding
KPIs,
but I get the impression that groups were required to establish metrics
of
some kind, without any actual oversight on how those metrics would
work.
Thus, we get things like the branding proposal's "anything less than
1800
users posting statements in opposition will be considered strong
support,
1800-2700 will be considered substantial support, 2700-3600 opposed
will
be
considered moderate support". Similar things have been happening
elsewhere,
eg, for the WMF's "Space" project. (Speaking of which, holding a
discussion
on a private off-wiki forum is not a valid method of community decision making, for branding or otherwise.)
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך שבת, 7 בספט׳ 2019 ב-20:54 מאת Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com
>:
I too think that an RfC is a good option here. I suggest having
multiple
questions in the RfC. Questions could include, "What should the organization that is currently known as the Wikimedia Foundation be named?", "Should there be a unifying brand for the online projects
such
as
Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons?", "If there is a unifying
brand
for the online projects then what should it be?", "Should there be a unifying brand for affiliates?", and "If there is a unifying brand
for
affiliates then what should it be?"
Overall I think that the report on Meta <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
makes for good reading as background information for an RfC.
I want to caution against trying to make too many big decisions at
once.
There is already a strategy process underway which has consumed a considerable number of volunteer hours, and the community has
precious
little capacity relative to normal operational demands without this
ongoing
strategy process being piled on top of everything else that people
want
the
community to do. There seems to be infinite demand for free skilled
labor,
but a finite supply of that same labor. I encourage both WMF and the community to think carefully about which questions to prioritize so
that
we
are not all overstretched and a significant number of problems slip
through
the cracks because collectively there were not adequate human
resources
to
thoughtfully address so many questions in a narrow period of time and develop consensus regarding how to move forward.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
I agree that an RFC would be a reasonable way forward.
On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that, according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC, I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
Given the typical response rate for polling is extremely low, even among groups of people who agreed to be polled, the 20% metric is absurd. If you put out some random notice among a million other emails to 9,000 people on various lists submitting a proposition to change the name to Fart Factory Incorporated, there's not a chance you'll get 1,800 to oppose it. Even a random internet poll, paying no attention to issues of sampling would be more accurate than this because at least internet polls don't include non-responses as either yes or no to the question being asked. If you're going to ask the community for input on something, then it should be done properly
Best,
Dan
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:59 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that an RFC would be a reasonable way forward.
On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that
it is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
that,
according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition
to
the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of
the
three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the
RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process
for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors
and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN
for
affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions
and
room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
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
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong decision.
Regards.
Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org ha scritto:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch for updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand strategy [1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication of how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our wide movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in tension with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions during their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely what branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia” as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite you to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want to commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left on the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately 6 months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to decide if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space main page.
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about this, so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread. Otherwise, we will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent metric and endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community when the only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa ferdi.traversa@gmail.com wrote:
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong decision.
Regards.
Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
ha scritto:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of this consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the gray "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to see and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about this, so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread. Otherwise, we will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent metric and endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community when the only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong decision.
Regards.
Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
ha scritto:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process
for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors
and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign
of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about this, so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread. Otherwise, we will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent metric and endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community when the only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are you kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR VOTE as suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a wrong decision.
Regards.
Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
ha scritto:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process
for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors
and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign
of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps” which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia Education Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena Lappen, Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are most comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
HI David,
Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the announcements about board or steward elections.
Best, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about
this,
so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
Otherwise, we
will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
metric and
endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
when the
only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
you
kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
VOTE as
suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
wrong
decision.
Regards.
Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
ha scritto:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process
for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors
and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
see
examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign
of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful
and
useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN for
affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions and
room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas
and
updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
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
I concur, it sounds sensible.
(I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com wrote:
HI David,
Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the announcements about board or steward elections.
Best, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about
this,
so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
Otherwise, we
will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
metric and
endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
when the
only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
you
kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
VOTE as
suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
wrong
decision.
Regards.
Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
ha scritto:
*Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process
for
movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
for
updates on Meta-Wiki.
Hello all,
After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
strategy
[1].
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors
and
63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
Reducing confusion 2.
Protecting reputation 3.
Supporting sister projects 4.
Addressing (legal, governmental) risks 5.
Supporting movement growth 6.
The process of change
Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
see
examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of
how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
our
wide
movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign
of
health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
tension
with each other.
Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful
and
useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
branding systems.
== Thanks ==
I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during
their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
this
consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your perspectives and insights.
== Next steps and staying involved ==
There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what
branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
approved continuing these efforts.
Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
“Wikipedia”
as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN for
affiliates.
This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you
to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions and
room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to
commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
on
the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas
and
updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki.
The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6
months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to
decide
if/when they opt in to using the new system.
Yours,
Zack
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
gray
"Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
see
and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main
page.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Director of Brand
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
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
It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all global identity. CentralNotice is appropriate.
Ferdinando
Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com ha scritto:
I concur, it sounds sensible.
(I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com wrote:
HI David,
Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the announcements about board or steward elections.
Best, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about
this,
so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
Otherwise, we
will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
metric and
endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
when the
only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
you
kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
VOTE as
suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
wrong
decision.
Regards.
> Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
ha scritto: > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process
for
> movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
for > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > Hello all, > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
> several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
pleased
> to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand strategy > [1]. > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors
and
> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > 1. > > Reducing confusion > 2. > > Protecting reputation > 3. > > Supporting sister projects > 4. > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > 5. > > Supporting movement growth > 6. > > The process of change > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
see
> examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of > how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
> > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
our
wide > movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign
of
> health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
> which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in tension > with each other. > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful
and
> useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
> branding systems. > > == Thanks == > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
> Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
> Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
this
> consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your > perspectives and insights. > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
appetite
> to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
these
> insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
> approved continuing these efforts. > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
> naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia” > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN for
> affiliates. > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
> volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
> discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions and
> room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
want
to > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
> within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
on > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas
and
> updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6 > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
> comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to decide > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > Yours, > > Zack > > [1] >
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
> > > [2] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
> > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
gray
> "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
see
> and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main > page. > > [4] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
> > > -- > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > Director of Brand > > 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
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
Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as feedback for this process.
The only recognized feedback mechanisms according to the original mail are the following:
1. Wikimedia Space group - https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network Currently 13 members
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re... No new conversations
3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re... A dialogue that has been started to discuss the problems of the KPIs and metrics.
I'd highly suggest if you want to make your feedback count, you go to these venues.
-Andrew
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ferdinando Traversa ferdi.traversa@gmail.com wrote:
It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all global identity. CentralNotice is appropriate.
Ferdinando
Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
ha scritto:
I concur, it sounds sensible.
(I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com wrote:
HI David,
Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as
the
announcements about board or steward elections.
Best, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about
this,
so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
Otherwise, we
will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
metric and
endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
when the
only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's
time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
you
> kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
VOTE as
> suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
wrong
> decision. > > Regards. > >> Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune < zmccune@wikimedia.org> > ha scritto: >> >> *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process
for >> movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
> for >> updates on Meta-Wiki. >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates, >> several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased >> to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand > strategy >> [1]. >> >> From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors
and >> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: >> >> 1. >> >> Reducing confusion >> 2. >> >> Protecting reputation >> 3. >> >> Supporting sister projects >> 4. >> >> Addressing (legal, governmental) risks >> 5. >> >> Supporting movement growth >> 6. >> >> The process of change >> >> Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
see
>> examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
> of >> how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
>> >> The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
our
> wide >> movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign
of >> health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
>> which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in > tension >> with each other. >> >> Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful
and
>> useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding >> successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
>> branding systems. >> >> == Thanks == >> >> I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
>> Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
> during >> their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
>> Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
this >> consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates >> commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your >> perspectives and insights. >> >> >> == Next steps and staying involved == >> >> There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general appetite >> to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that >> critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
> what >> branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared these >> insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
>> approved continuing these efforts. >> >> Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
>> naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use > “Wikipedia” >> as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN for
>> affiliates. >> >> This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
>> volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this >> consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
> you >> to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
>> discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions and
>> room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not want > to >> commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
>> within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
> on >> the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas
and
>> updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
>> publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. >> >> The development of this proposed identity system will take approximately > 6 >> months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, >> Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
>> comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to > decide >> if/when they opt in to using the new system. >> >> Yours, >> >> Zack >> >> [1] >> >
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
>> >> >> [2] >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
>> >> >> [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
gray >> "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
see >> and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
> main >> page. >> >> [4] >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
>> >> >> -- >> >> Zack McCune (he/him) >> >> Director of Brand >> >> 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
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
Andrew Lih wrote:
Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as feedback for this process.
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
MZMcBride
This is largely my feeling as well. If you look at one of Andrew's links:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
You'll see some quite vigorous opposition to the name change and robust support for explicitly not changing the name.
Fast-forward more than six months and now 20% of people have to actively oppose something or it's supported, even though there is no way that you'll get a response rate on *anything* *ever* to be 20% on a large email list.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:48 PM MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as feedback for this process.
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
MZMcBride
On 12 Sep 2019, at 17:47, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as feedback for this process.
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Mike (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 20:27, Mike Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is
that
a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Mike (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
Yes. If we could just put aside discussing people ad hominem, and instead focus on *reasoning*, also known as constructive feedback / criticism. According to the original email that should happen on meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results, or on wikimedia space https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/community-feedback-and-next-steps-on-the-movement-brand-proposal/1218 .
Aron
I’m sorry but things can’t go like you would like to intend giving this ironic inversion because we don’t have possibility to decide anything. We’re only asking to listen all the community to do a very very important decision like this.
Un abbraccio,
Ferdinando
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 PM , Mike Peel wrote:
On 12 Sep 2019, at 17:47, MZMcBridez@mzmcbride.comwrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as feedback for this process.
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Hi.
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Mike (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.) _______________________________________________ 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
Mike Peel wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Mike (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
I'm genuinely curious what you think a "Director of Brand" does. Other than leading a rebranding effort, what does that role entail?
We're talking about the same organization that hired search engine optimization consultants. For Wikipedia, a site with notoriously incredible search engine results page placement. And even among the sleazy underbelly of search engine optimization consultants, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. partnered with a particularly bad group.
We're also talking about the same organization that unilaterally changed its logo in a dramatic "fade to black".
Operating in good faith only works bidirectionally. When people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and making bad decisions without community consultation, much less community endorsement, it becomes clear that at least one party is no longer acting in good faith.
So, no, I don't think everyone is working toward the same goals here. Should we have a conversation about the neglected sister projects? Absolutely. This isn't it.
MZMcBride
On 13 Sep 2019, at 06:03, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Peel wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Mike (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
I'm genuinely curious what you think a "Director of Brand" does. Other than leading a rebranding effort, what does that role entail?
We're talking about the same organization that hired search engine optimization consultants. For Wikipedia, a site with notoriously incredible search engine results page placement. And even among the sleazy underbelly of search engine optimization consultants, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. partnered with a particularly bad group.
We're also talking about the same organization that unilaterally changed its logo in a dramatic "fade to black".
Operating in good faith only works bidirectionally. When people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and making bad decisions without community consultation, much less community endorsement, it becomes clear that at least one party is no longer acting in good faith.
So, no, I don't think everyone is working toward the same goals here. Should we have a conversation about the neglected sister projects? Absolutely. This isn't it.
My “engage in conversation” comment was pointed in both directions - hopefully Wikimedians at the WMF will also comment on this thread? On Zack’s title, he describes his role as "I work to raise awareness and usage of Wikimedia projects around the world, expanding the global reach of free knowledge.” (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZMcCune_(WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZMcCune_(WMF) ).
Thanks, Mike
I left a message, please write you too so we can stop this (I listen only to channels that will say that I’m right lalalalaalalla… this seems the behavior of WMF): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
Regards,
Ferdinando
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 PM , Andrew Lih wrote:
Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as feedback for this process.
The only recognized feedback mechanisms according to the original mail are the following:
- Wikimedia Space group - https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network
Currently 13 members
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re... No new conversations
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re... A dialogue that has been started to discuss the problems of the KPIs and metrics.
I'd highly suggest if you want to make your feedback count, you go to these venues.
-Andrew
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ferdinando Traversaferdi.traversa@gmail.com wrote:
It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all global identity. CentralNotice is appropriate.
Ferdinando
Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com
ha scritto:
I concur, it sounds sensible.
(I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski kiril.simeonovski@gmail.comwrote:
HI David,
Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as
the
announcements about board or steward elections.
Best, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerarddgerard@gmail.comwrote:
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanterymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski< kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi all, > > It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about
this,
> so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
Otherwise, we
> will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
metric and
> endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
when the
> only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's
time.
> > Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC? > > Best regards, > Kiril > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa< > ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
you
> > kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
VOTE as
> > suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
wrong
> > decision. > > > > Regards. > > > > > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune< > zmccune@wikimedia.org> > > ha scritto: > > > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process
> for > > > movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
> > for > > > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of > affiliates, > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am > pleased > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand > > strategy > > > [1]. > > > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors
> and > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > Reducing confusion > > > 2. > > > > > > Protecting reputation > > > 3. > > > > > > Supporting sister projects > > > 4. > > > > > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > > > 5. > > > > > > Supporting movement growth > > > 6. > > > > > > The process of change > > > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will
see
> > > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
> > of > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
> > > > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across
our
> > wide > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign
> of > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
> > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in > > tension > > > with each other. > > > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful
and
> > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding > > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
> > > branding systems. > > > > > > == Thanks == > > > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
> > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
> > during > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
> > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
> this > > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates > > > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your > > > perspectives and insights. > > > > > > > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > > > > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general > appetite > > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that > > > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
> > what > > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared > these > > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
> > > approved continuing these efforts. > > > > > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
> > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use > > “Wikipedia” > > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN for
> > > affiliates. > > > > > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
> > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this > > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
> > you > > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
> > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions and
> > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not > want > > to > > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
> > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments
left
> > on > > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas
and
> > > updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> > > publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > > > > > The development of this proposed identity system will take > approximately > > 6 > > > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing lists, > > > Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you are
most
> > > comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power to > > decide > > > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > Zack > > > > > > [1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
> > > > > > > > > [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
> > > > > > > > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
> gray > > > "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
> see > > > and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
> > main > > > page. > > > > > > [4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > > > > > Director of Brand > > > > > > Wikimedia Foundationhttps://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
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
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Andrew,
There has already been an extensive consultation in the first half year of 2019. Zack presented the outcome to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation August 14th in Stockholm. Het got a go for a next phase. The current dialogue is about implementation details, as far as I understand the status of the current process.
Regards,
Ad
Op do 12 sep. 2019 17:14 schreef Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com:
Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as feedback for this process.
The only recognized feedback mechanisms according to the original mail are the following:
- Wikimedia Space group -
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network Currently 13 members
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re... No new conversations
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re... A dialogue that has been started to discuss the problems of the KPIs and metrics.
I'd highly suggest if you want to make your feedback count, you go to these venues.
-Andrew
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
It’ll be a very very important RFC. More than elections, it’s about all global identity. CentralNotice is appropriate.
Ferdinando
Il giorno 7 set 2019, alle ore 22:06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
ha scritto:
I concur, it sounds sensible.
(I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com wrote:
HI David,
Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as
the
announcements about board or steward elections.
Best, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta
about
this,
> so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
Otherwise, we
> will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
metric and
> endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
when the
> only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's
time.
> > Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC? > > Best regards, > Kiril > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < > ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees? Are
you
>> kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
VOTE as
>> suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
wrong
>> decision. >> >> Regards. >> >>> Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune < > zmccune@wikimedia.org> >> ha scritto: >>> >>> *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process
> for >>> movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
watch
>> for >>> updates on Meta-Wiki. >>> >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of > affiliates, >>> several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am > pleased >>> to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
>> strategy >>> [1]. >>> >>> From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors
> and >>> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Reducing confusion >>> 2. >>> >>> Protecting reputation >>> 3. >>> >>> Supporting sister projects >>> 4. >>> >>> Addressing (legal, governmental) risks >>> 5. >>> >>> Supporting movement growth >>> 6. >>> >>> The process of change >>> >>> Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
>>> examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
>> of >>> how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
>>> >>> The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our
>> wide >>> movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a
sign
> of >>> health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity
maps”
>>> which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist
in
>> tension >>> with each other. >>> >>> Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and
>>> useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding >>> successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
>>> branding systems. >>> >>> == Thanks == >>> >>> I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
>>> Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
>> during >>> their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
>>> Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts
of
> this >>> consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates >>> commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
>>> perspectives and insights. >>> >>> >>> == Next steps and staying involved == >>> >>> There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general > appetite >>> to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe
that
>>> critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
>> what >>> branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
> these >>> insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees,
who
>>> approved continuing these efforts. >>> >>> Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal
brand
>>> naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use >> “Wikipedia” >>> as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN for
>>> affiliates. >>> >>> This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group
of
>>> volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during
this
>>> consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
>> you >>> to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host
this
>>> discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions and
>>> room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do
not
> want >> to >>> commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
>>> within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left
>> on >>> the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
>>> updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
>>> publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. >>> >>> The development of this proposed identity system will take > approximately >> 6 >>> months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
>>> Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you
are
most
>>> comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the power
to
>> decide >>> if/when they opt in to using the new system. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Zack >>> >>> [1] >>> >> >
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
>>> >>> >>> [2] >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
>>> >>> >>> [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and click
the
> gray >>> "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be able
to
> see >>> and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
>> main >>> page. >>> >>> [4] >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Zack McCune (he/him) >>> >>> Director of Brand >>> >>> 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
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
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:42 PM Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
Hi Andrew,
There has already been an extensive consultation in the first half year of 2019. Zack presented the outcome to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation August 14th in Stockholm. Het got a go for a next phase. The current dialogue is about implementation details, as far as I understand the status of the current process.
Yes, but perhaps what folks may miss is that there is a fundamental disconnect between the numbers as presented earlier in this thread versus what has been seen in various forums and discussions.
To wit: one figure that is less than 1% and one that is much much greater than 50%, both of which are trying to measure the same sentiment. That should give us all pause about how legitimate the next steps may be, regardless of which side one is on.
On-wiki discussion of this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommunications%2FWikimed...
-Andrew
Yes, let's see an actually public RfC on this. We shouldn't have to argue about what the support/oppose proportions are, we should see it right there on an on-wiki page where anyone is free to review them.
Todd
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 2:06 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I concur, it sounds sensible.
(I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com wrote:
HI David,
Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the announcements about board or steward elections.
Best, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Right.
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski < kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta
about
this,
so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
Otherwise, we
will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
metric and
endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
when the
only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's
time.
Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
Best regards, Kiril
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa < ferdi.traversa@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees?
Are
you
kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
VOTE as
suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
wrong
decision.
Regards.
> Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
zmccune@wikimedia.org>
ha scritto: > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process
for
> movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group,
or
watch
for > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > Hello all, > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
> several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I
am
pleased
> to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
strategy > [1]. > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors
and
> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > 1. > > Reducing confusion > 2. > > Protecting reputation > 3. > > Supporting sister projects > 4. > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > 5. > > Supporting movement growth > 6. > > The process of change > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
> examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of > how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
> > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our
wide > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign
of
> health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps”
> which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist in
tension > with each other. > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and
> useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
> branding systems. > > == Thanks == > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
> Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
> Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this
> consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
> perspectives and insights. > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite
> to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe
that
> critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these
> insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> approved continuing these efforts. > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand
> naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia” > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN for
> affiliates. > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during
this
> consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to
host
this
> discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions and
> room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you
do not
want
to > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
> within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left
on > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
> updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6 > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
> Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you
are
most
> comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power to
decide > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > Yours, > > Zack > > [1] >
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-bra...
> > > [2] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
> > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray
> "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be
able
to
see
> and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main > page. > > [4] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
> > > -- > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > Director of Brand > > 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
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
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:49 AM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
The benchmark is completely twisted to make opposition impossible:
* Support and Opposition are measured by different metrics: Support is measured by "reviewing affiliates support" and opposition by "informed user opposition". * Support percentage is set at 38% for reviewing affiliates (24 affiliates?), it would be roughly 19% for reached affiliates and 15% of total affiliates. * Opposition percentage is set at 0.6% for informed (reached) users, it would be 38% of reviewing users.
On the other hand:
* Opposition from reviewing affiliates is 9.5%. * Support from reviewing users is 13% (vs 38% oppose) * Support from reached users is around 0.2% (vs 0.6% oppose).
The support and opposition metrics seem to be cherry-picked to force a strong support result, but that is not the case when comparable metrics are used.
I agree that a proper RFC should be created, possibly at the initiative of the community, to get a clearer result.
Best,
MarioGom
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 11:58 AM Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:49 AM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
- Opposition percentage is set at 0.6% for informed (reached) users, it
would be 38% of reviewing users.
With respect to the what would be considered a high opposition rate, do you realize that 20% of _reached_ users means that the bar was set to 1,800 users to voice their opposition explicitly?
Best,
MarioGom
On 06.09.19 05:49, Zack McCune wrote:
Supporting sister projects
I am extremely wary of this phrasing. Instead of a family of projects working together towards a shared goal, to me this invokes the image of a big, central Wikipedia who graciously supports the other, insignificant projects out of the goodness of her heart. As a Wikidata editor, that is not how I want my relation to this movement characterized.
By the way, the solution is really easy: The Wiki Foundation.
2019 ira. 7 1:39 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lucas Werkmeister mail@lucaswerkmeister.de):
On 06.09.19 05:49, Zack McCune wrote:
Supporting sister projects
I am extremely wary of this phrasing. Instead of a family of projects working together towards a shared goal, to me this invokes the image of a big, central Wikipedia who graciously supports the other, insignificant projects out of the goodness of her heart. As a Wikidata editor, that is not how I want my relation to this movement characterized.
_______________________________________________ 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, The right question here: how have you supported the sister projects in the past. The follow question: Branding is about getting attention for products. How will the sister projects benefit from more attention to Wikipedia?
The point is we have not marketed the products from sister projects. We could have and the results would have been wildly important and relevant to a mission where we aim to share in the sum of all knowledge. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 13:40, Lucas Werkmeister mail@lucaswerkmeister.de wrote:
On 06.09.19 05:49, Zack McCune wrote:
Supporting sister projects
I am extremely wary of this phrasing. Instead of a family of projects working together towards a shared goal, to me this invokes the image of a big, central Wikipedia who graciously supports the other, insignificant projects out of the goodness of her heart. As a Wikidata editor, that is not how I want my relation to this movement characterized.
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