I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites.
----- Original Message ----
From: James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites.
"Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM organizations that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content we curate."
Birgitte SB
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites.
"Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM organizations that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content we curate."
Birgitte SB
Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle.
On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle.
I don't entirely agree. A good name for a movement is one that describes while it labels, e.g. "Creative Commons". I'd like a better name than "the free culture" when referring to the broader sense of "us". If we can come up with one, then win.
- d.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle.
I don't entirely agree. A good name for a movement is one that describes while it labels, e.g. "Creative Commons". I'd like a better name than "the free culture" when referring to the broader sense of "us". If we can come up with one, then win.
Great observation and great reply.
It _is_ putting the cart before the horse to pick a name before you start picking members. Logically you first assemble a group of "Movement Sites", then invite their representatives to a discussion, and then collectively decide on a name.
But, right now, we have the strategic advantage that since we're the ones organizing, we can pick the tentative name now and we can pick the sites invited in the first wave of invitations.
That have been LOTS of "free info sharing" movements. What would make this one special?
Basically, that it is intrinsically and clearly tied to the "Global Wikimedia Commmunities" and is an extension OF the Wikimedia values ON other sites.
If we pick a name as generic as "Open Knowledge", or if we invite potential members before we get a tentative name, then how will we communicate the idea of that the movement is centered around Wikimedia, its values, and its success?
How will we ensure that the "Wikimedia beyond WMF servers" movement can be promoted and supported by the existing Wikimedia movement and its foundation.
If we just start "a new" movement with no clear tie to the existing Wikimedia groups, think of a name is simple, but the resulting movement will be neither special nor new.
We want other projects to, be able to have the exact same kind of relationship with our foundation that our existing projects enjoy, if all parties agree. That will still have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but that's the goal of forming a new movement-- to help the WMF identify, ally with, and cooperate with those projects that are part of its movement without being part of its serverfarm.
Our foundation is something very one-of-a-kind. Nonprofit foundations are a dime a dozen, but OUR foundation is a group of non-profit professionals who have "adapted themselves" to interface with a large, diverse, global community-- and vice versa.
A foundation "run by" an activist wiki community with the help of high-quality professionals-- I know of no other organization that has ever developed in quite this way, and it seems to be doing things that nobody else ever succeeded in doing.
Free information movements aren't new-- what is new is Wikimedia. It's managed to keep a large, coherent community for a decade, it's managed to stabilizing and multiply our funding source, it provides high grade strategic support and leadership-- that's the "special element".
If an Unnamed Movement doesn't start off clearly tied to Wikimedia, the job isn't going to get any easier once we invite people who aren't currently even part of Wikimedia. If it's hard for us to decide what our name and our values are, it's only going to get more difficult after we invite people who are currently more tied to Mediawiki than Wikimedia.
After all, we only want people who are basically okay with "Wikimedia Values". Clarifying that vision BEFORE assembling the candidate members is important.
A brand name isn't the ONLY way to communicate a clear, strong tie to WMF/Wikimedia, but it is a very very powerful way. And remember, we -basically- want the foundation to have a sort of veto power over formal membership in the Unnamed Movement. I can't swear how a future group of people will actually behave, but the hope is that the the 'core' of this Larger Unnamed Movement should so closely tied to WMF that we forget they're not part of it.
For the "most core" projects, ties to the foundation will happen anyway on a case by case-- but the IDEA is that there could be a movement set up to include projects too new or too small to merit ANY such evaluation by the foundation. But the foundation should always feel comfortable supporting and promoting this larger unnamed movement. They should also feel comfortable disavowing isolated bad-faith actors who 'claim' a kinship to the movement.
If I just invite the projects that, in my mind, share our values, how do we know we won't wind up a with a group that the foundation and our projects AREN'T comfortable supporting?
If the new movement is "just another" free information movement-- one with no clear ties to WMF or the existing Wikimedia Movement, then the people who join it won't have any clear ties to WMF either. And WMF, therefore, will, in turn, not feel as connected to the larger movement and not feel as comfortable supporting it.
A movement can't have a gatekeeper-- the lack of a gatekeeper is what makes movements so powerful.
That said-- it's important that we have a movement that looks as much as possible like WMF was, in fact, the gatekeeper--- we like the group that arises by letting WMF be the gatekeeper, we just know that, in practice, WMF won't have time (or need) to perform the time-intensive task of gatekeeping evaluation for every single last project that is going to want to join The Unnamed Movement.
A lot of Open Knowledge Movements have come and gone on the internet-- what's new and special is that this movement would, from birth, "Wikimedia's" open knowledge movement.
(and indeed, for me, it's not about movement-making as much as it's about reclaiming all the projects ideologically in our movement, but which our movement doesn't currently get credit for, simply because they are hosted elsewhere)
Thanks so much to all the great feedback from everyone on this.
Also, lots of people have sent lists of potential candidate organizations and projects to me-- please keep doing that. I haven't put them on-wiki because I don't want to offend any sites that aren't in the first wave of invitations-- but the list definitely needs assembling, regardless of what names and movement structures arise out of this thread-- so if you known good candidates: Projects that "share Wikimedia Values"-- shout them out.
Alec
If I didn't have a heart I would have gone into advertising, specifically for branding. The topic is a long time interest of mine, so here's my amateur opinion with education on the branding world.
The success of a brand depends on synching an idea/product with one name. At this point in time, an encyclopedia is rapidly approaching Wikipedia instead of World Book or any other publication. Now, these are publications not generally identified with a brand, but a product name. "I'd check an encyclopedia like Encarta or World Book" and nowadays "Wikipedia". The concept of an encyclopedia has not been branded. Another example is in the American South: every carbonated soft drink is Coke. "Do you want a Coke?" "Sure, Sprite."
Wikipedia is on its way to take this over, just as "googling" exists. It will further overcome the nomenclature for index research. Now, how can we expand this into another name?
Simple answer: we can't.
Open Knowledge, Free Knowledge, Creative Commons, Gnu, Wikimedia, nothing holds a candle to replacing a verb with a noun. We google, we skype, we Wikipedia. Advancement of the Wikipedia brand is the only feasible option to expand Wikimedia coverage, as shown by almost every study both academically and journalistic relating to our products. If Wikipedia is tied into any coverage related to a sister project it will be read and understood. If not tied in, we get confusion.
The Wikipedia brand brings distrust but acceptance to any project stamped with it, and that is our key in the market. People just want to know, as emphasized by the American commercial where a guy is arguing on the phone about when "Whoop There It Is" came out and he is proved wrong by en.wp mobile. When someone just wants to check something, the name Wikipedia is ruling the roost. The Wikipedia name is the brand. How to boost other projects based on the name is to build all projects into recognition of the Wikipedia umbrella. Google is, so far, what does this.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In reply overall-- I definitely agree that Wikipedia is, by far, our strongest brand-- and a very different brand than the one that would be served by a wider unnamed movement.
I haven't been anywhere near as ambition to think we could get a brand anywhere as good as Wikipedia. Its brand is so off-the-charts it's a little unfathomable.
I'd be happy with something in the neighborhood of Wikimedia-- if donors and editors communities can easily understand it means "Wikimedia Movement on other servers", I'm good.
Now, how can we expand this into another name? Simple answer: we can't.
Well... we certainly do it as well as Wikipedia. But we can "piggyback" off the Wikipedia name in ways, as the name Wikimedia does. ...
Advancement of the Wikipedia brand is the only feasible option to expand Wikimedia coverage, as shown by almost every study both academically and journalistic relating to our products. If Wikipedia is tied into any coverage related to a sister project it will be read and understood. If not tied in, we get confusion.
Exactly. The whole online world "gets" Wikipedia, and the closer you can be tied to it, the more people understand your values. All the WMF-sites ARE seen as "tied" to Wikipedia-- but the third-party sites are misunderstood, seen as just randomly off doing their own thing.
Something close, but not something so close as not to imply direct control by the foundation.
I have a very long list of non-wikipedia related names. The list of piggy-back names off Wikipedia is pretty short however:
"Wikimedia Movement" would work for the movement, but it seems a little "too in-use" and "too-close to home" for us to use that. "Wiki?edia Movement" , no clue how you could pronounce it. "Wiki*edia Movement" , pronounced "Wiki-Staredia Movement", "Wiki-Edia Movement", pronounced Wiki-Edia "Wiki-Seedia Movement", each project is a seed? hokey.
For some unknown reason, I also like WikiZedia. An Omega or other symbol in the middle might also work if we want to get really crazy, but pronunciations are essential
All these are are very geeky and so not ideal. My brain really isn't the right brain to generate a good piggy-back brand. I don't care what we call it, I more want us to recognize it and start calling it something. And these names also might still be too close to home for some of us.
As for the word "Movement"-- it can always be termed Alliance, Coalition, Cloud, Constellation, Sphere, or something else entirely. Movement is the best factual description, I think, but brands are a whole different ballgame.
Alec
On 16/07/11 13:19, Alec Conroy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In reply overall-- I definitely agree that Wikipedia is, by far, our strongest brand-- and a very different brand than the one that would be served by a wider unnamed movement.
I haven't been anywhere near as ambition to think we could get a brand anywhere as good as Wikipedia. Its brand is so off-the-charts it's a little unfathomable.
I'd be happy with something in the neighborhood of Wikimedia-- if donors and editors communities can easily understand it means "Wikimedia Movement on other servers", I'm good.
Now, how can we expand this into another name? Simple answer: we can't.
Well... we certainly do it as well as Wikipedia. But we can "piggyback" off the Wikipedia name in ways, as the name Wikimedia does. ...
"Wiki" is the key word: for good or ill, the word "wiki" now means "wikipedia-like collaborative things" to the general public. Perhaps the "Wikiknowledge movement"?
-- Neil
----- Original Message ----
From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:07:33 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this
as
the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites.
"Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has.
We
don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM
organizations
that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the
lines
of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to
forthrightly
advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the
content we
curate."
Birgitte SB
Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle.
A GLAM institute doesn't necessarily own the copyrights to all the content they have. A project that contains copyrighted material would not be able to use an "Open Content" badge. "Open Content" has to be restricted to places where it is allowable to make derivatives works for commercial purposes from the content.
Yet it would be nice to have a way to notice a hypothetical GLAM that doesn't attempt to claim copyright on PD works they have merely digitized, freely licenses the derivative materials produced by employees, and makes detailed copyright info on their content accessible. There is a significant difference between an organization who might make such an effort and one that tends to stamp "All material Copyright of [GLAM]" everywhere (whether that claim could possibly be true or not). It would be nice to notice those organizations which are doing what they can with the rights they do control rather than saying "It's shame you accepted those donations of materials 50 years back without securing full copyright control, but with that content you can't join our club."
Birgitte SB
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org