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_resear… 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 &lt;dranville-ctr(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- Zack McCune (he/him) Director of Brand Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>

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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;strainu10(a)gmail.com wrote:

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. 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(a)hotmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt;)t;): > > 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 &lt;strainu10(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz &lt;ajraddatz(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. > > > > > > > > > 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(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > 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 &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; > > 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(a)wikimedia.org&gt; > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/26/leading- > > > with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_ > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_ > > > 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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > faewik(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

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. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

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 &lt;yyairrand(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;benjaminikuta(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;ferdi.traversa(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On all wikis? On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com&gt; 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: 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_r… No new conversations 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_r… 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 &lt;ferdi.traversa(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- -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(a)andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE

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_r… 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 &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 20:27, Mike Peel &lt;email(a)mikepeel.net&gt; wrote: 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

Mike Peel wrote: 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

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_r… Regards, Ferdinando On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 PM , Andrew Lih wrote:

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:42 PM Ad Huikeshoven &lt;ad(a)huikeshoven.org&gt; wrote: 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%2FWikime… -Andrew

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 &lt;mail(a)lucaswerkmeister.de&gt; wrote: