This is out in several newspapers now.
"Snøhetta shall create new visual profile for Wikipedia-owner" [1]
A quick Google Translate dump
The mission is the largest in the field of graphic design ever, writes Dagens Næringsliv.
- For me personally, this is very big, but you see it in a larger perspective - Norway, Norwegian design and graphic design - then this is one of the largest international customers who have come to Norway and chosen a Norwegian design agency. So it's very big, says strategic advisor Sanda Zahirovic in the design department in Snøhetta to the newspaper.
Eight companies were in the competition for the assignment. Creative director Heather Walls at Wikimedia will not go out with Dagens Næringsliv with what other companies were talking about, but says that Snøhetta was the obvious choice.
Snow hood founder and partner Kjetil Trædal Thorsen cannot say how much the contract is worth, but emphasizes that the work is devoting a good deal of resources during the project period, which is half a year.
[1] https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-skape-en-ny-visuel...
Note that "Dagens næringsliv" printed the story Thursday, so they must have had information about it before WMF left the meeting with Snøhetta. This is no longer a breaking story.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:04 AM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
This is out in several newspapers now.
"Snøhetta shall create new visual profile for Wikipedia-owner" [1]
A quick Google Translate dump
The mission is the largest in the field of graphic design ever, writes Dagens Næringsliv.
- For me personally, this is very big, but you see it in a larger
perspective - Norway, Norwegian design and graphic design - then this is one of the largest international customers who have come to Norway and chosen a Norwegian design agency. So it's very big, says strategic advisor Sanda Zahirovic in the design department in Snøhetta to the newspaper.
Eight companies were in the competition for the assignment. Creative director Heather Walls at Wikimedia will not go out with Dagens Næringsliv with what other companies were talking about, but says that Snøhetta was the obvious choice.
Snow hood founder and partner Kjetil Trædal Thorsen cannot say how much the contract is worth, but emphasizes that the work is devoting a good deal of resources during the project period, which is half a year.
[1] https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-skape-en-ny-visuel...
Umm.....
Looking at https://brandingwikipedia.org/, I wonder if this refers to WMF's ill-fated effort to rebrand Wikimedia as Wikipedia that I hope has been abandoned. I hope that WMF did not, without consulting the community or even having the courtesy to notify us, decide to launch another rebranding effort
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:27 PM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Note that "Dagens næringsliv" printed the story Thursday, so they must have had information about it before WMF left the meeting with Snøhetta. This is no longer a breaking story.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:04 AM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
This is out in several newspapers now.
"Snøhetta shall create new visual profile for Wikipedia-owner" [1]
A quick Google Translate dump
The mission is the largest in the field of graphic design ever, writes Dagens Næringsliv.
- For me personally, this is very big, but you see it in a larger
perspective - Norway, Norwegian design and graphic design - then this is one of the largest international customers who have come to Norway and chosen a Norwegian design agency. So it's very big, says strategic advisor Sanda Zahirovic in the design department in Snøhetta to the newspaper.
Eight companies were in the competition for the assignment. Creative director Heather Walls at Wikimedia will not go out with Dagens Næringsliv with what other companies were talking about, but says that Snøhetta was the obvious choice.
Snow hood founder and partner Kjetil Trædal Thorsen cannot say how much the contract is worth, but emphasizes that the work is devoting a good deal of resources during the project period, which is half a year.
[1]
https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-skape-en-ny-visuel...
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
Domain Registered on: 2020-01-02 Linked Wiki page is still getting edits: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands...
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 09:36, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Umm.....
Looking at https://brandingwikipedia.org/, I wonder if this refers to WMF's ill-fated effort to rebrand Wikimedia as Wikipedia that I hope has been abandoned. I hope that WMF did not, without consulting the community or even having the courtesy to notify us, decide to launch another rebranding effort
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:27 PM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Note that "Dagens næringsliv" printed the story Thursday, so they must have had information about it before WMF left the meeting with Snøhetta. This is no longer a breaking story.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:04 AM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
This is out in several newspapers now.
"Snøhetta shall create new visual profile for Wikipedia-owner" [1]
A quick Google Translate dump
The mission is the largest in the field of graphic design ever, writes Dagens Næringsliv.
- For me personally, this is very big, but you see it in a larger
perspective - Norway, Norwegian design and graphic design - then this is one of the largest international customers who have come to Norway and chosen a Norwegian design agency. So it's very big, says strategic advisor Sanda Zahirovic in the design department in Snøhetta to the newspaper.
Eight companies were in the competition for the assignment. Creative director Heather Walls at Wikimedia will not go out with Dagens Næringsliv with what other companies were talking about, but says that Snøhetta was the obvious choice.
Snow hood founder and partner Kjetil Trædal Thorsen cannot say how much the contract is worth, but emphasizes that the work is devoting a good deal of resources during the project period, which is half a year.
[1]
https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-skape-en-ny-visuel...
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 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 23:04, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
This is out in several newspapers now.
"Snøhetta shall create new visual profile for Wikipedia-owner"
This edit made 10 January 2020, is relevant:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands...
Indeed, Snøhetta was added to that page on 18 December 2019.
User:SnøhettaAS was blocked on en.Wikipedia on 4 October 2019, after just three edits - two to [[Snøhetta (company)]] and one to their talk page. No paid editing declaration had been made. The subsequent history of that article is also worth reviewing.
There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. This is not one of them.
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on. Without having access to WMF internal discussions, I don't know exactly who I would remove, but I've had enough of poor coordination, questionable financial decisions, and discourtesy, and I hope that the donors and the Board have too. These problems are not isolated to the rebranding effort, but I think that this is as good a place as any to start replacing employees who aren't working out.
Earthfire and rustbuckets, can we please stop calling for people to be fired for doing their job, especially right after admitting that there is obviously more going on that we don't know about yet. No one's going to "start replacing employees" based on mailing list messages, so this kind of peremptory statement only serves as dog-whistling posturing, and only contributes to the denominator part of this list's signal-to-noise ratio. This is literally divisive.
Be better than that.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:50 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. This is not one of them.
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on. Without having access to WMF internal discussions, I don't know exactly who I would remove, but I've had enough of poor coordination, questionable financial decisions, and discourtesy, and I hope that the donors and the Board have too. These problems are not isolated to the rebranding effort, but I think that this is as good a place as any to start replacing employees who aren't working out.
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
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:50 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on. Without having access to WMF internal discussions
So what you're saying is that you don't have lots of information on how it's decided [1] but you still feel informed enough to at least fire "some people". Isn't it harassment? How would you feel if I come to your workplace (assuming you're an employee) and tell everyone you should be fired based on something I disagree with?
It doesn't mean you can't criticise the contract, the rebranding work or any other WMF project. But criticising like this would just defy your purpose. I hope moderators of this mailing list take action.
[1] e.g. Are you sure the board hasn't approved this?
… and people immediately went ballistic. Calm down and discuss the topic!
The news reporting seems to be that Snøhetta has been awarded a full design project, while the page at Meta says it should act as some form of facilitator. It could be interesting to know what is correct, as these two descriptions are pretty disparate.
Interesting to see -- thanks for the pointer John! I like what I've seen of Snøhetta + their work, would love to hear more.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:56 PM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
… and people immediately went ballistic. Calm down and discuss the topic!
The news reporting seems to be that Snøhetta has been awarded a full design project, while the page at Meta says it should act as some form of facilitator. It could be interesting to know what is correct, as these two descriptions are pretty disparate.
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 Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. This is not one of them.
Eh questionable. The community is difficult to engage at the best of times and tends to be reflexively conservative about such things. It may well be that it is impossible to get any meaningful agreement on rebranding.
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on.
This kind of thing has happened from time to time despite significant staff turnover over the years. Probably just a natural function of certain organisations. All we can really do is try and limit the damage.
but I've had enough of poor coordination,
Unavoidable from time to time since there is too much going on for any one person to keep track of.
questionable financial decisions,
Again a function of size. It would frankly be concerning if every editor agreed with every financial decisions. There is also the long standing problem of balancing the risk of wasting money with the risk of paralysis.
This meta RfC might be of interest: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c...
Gracias, Mike
On 19 Jan 2020, at 08:54:12, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. This is not one of them.
Eh questionable. The community is difficult to engage at the best of times and tends to be reflexively conservative about such things. It may well be that it is impossible to get any meaningful agreement on rebranding.
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on.
This kind of thing has happened from time to time despite significant staff turnover over the years. Probably just a natural function of certain organisations. All we can really do is try and limit the damage.
but I've had enough of poor coordination,
Unavoidable from time to time since there is too much going on for any one person to keep track of.
questionable financial decisions,
Again a function of size. It would frankly be concerning if every editor agreed with every financial decisions. There is also the long standing problem of balancing the risk of wasting money with the risk of paralysis.
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for the heads-up, Mike, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mike Peel Sent: 20 January 2020 00:29 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Snøhetta and Wikimedia
This meta RfC might be of interest: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c...
Gracias, Mike
On 19 Jan 2020, at 08:54:12, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. This is not one of them.
Eh questionable. The community is difficult to engage at the best of times and tends to be reflexively conservative about such things. It may well be that it is impossible to get any meaningful agreement on rebranding.
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on.
This kind of thing has happened from time to time despite significant staff turnover over the years. Probably just a natural function of certain organisations. All we can really do is try and limit the damage.
but I've had enough of poor coordination,
Unavoidable from time to time since there is too much going on for any one person to keep track of.
questionable financial decisions,
Again a function of size. It would frankly be concerning if every editor agreed with every financial decisions. There is also the long standing problem of balancing the risk of wasting money with the risk of paralysis.
-- geni
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
Mmm... How can such a relevant topic be discussed oficially at Facebook?
This is, by far, the worst way to do it.
2020 urt. 20 9:48 AM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net):
Thanks for the heads-up, Mike, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mike Peel Sent: 20 January 2020 00:29 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Snøhetta and Wikimedia
This meta RfC might be of interest: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c...
Gracias, Mike
On 19 Jan 2020, at 08:54:12, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. This is not one of them.
Eh questionable. The community is difficult to engage at the best of times and tends to be reflexively conservative about such things. It may well be that it is impossible to get any meaningful agreement on rebranding.
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on.
This kind of thing has happened from time to time despite significant staff turnover over the years. Probably just a natural function of certain organisations. All we can really do is try and limit the damage.
but I've had enough of poor coordination,
Unavoidable from time to time since there is too much going on for any one person to keep track of.
questionable financial decisions,
Again a function of size. It would frankly be concerning if every editor agreed with every financial decisions. There is also the long standing problem of balancing the risk of wasting money with the risk of paralysis.
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Just want to reinforce some other comments -- Pine... WMF employees, many of whom gave up subscribing to this list long ago, are real people and this is their livelihood.
Suggestions to start firing people add no value to the discussion and, if anything, detract from the credibility of the other points you are trying to make (which I largely agree with).
Hoping with the benefit of a few days of cooling down that is clear to you as well.
~Nathan
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:50 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. This is not one of them.
I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on. Without having access to WMF internal discussions, I don't know exactly who I would remove, but I've had enough of poor coordination, questionable financial decisions, and discourtesy, and I hope that the donors and the Board have too. These problems are not isolated to the rebranding effort, but I think that this is as good a place as any to start replacing employees who aren't working out.
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
Hello,
I have waited to return to this thread until I could clear enough space in my mind to try to address it thoroughly. Apologies for the delay. I will try to address multiple topics in one email.
I think that the Wikipedia brand is, in a way, the brand of the community. WMF is the steward of the brand, and should not use the brand in ways which the community has not authorized by consensus.
There was a previous mailing discussion on Wikimedia-l in September 2019. I would have expected an update after that discussion if WMF was considering moving ahead with rebranding itself. An email announcing that the matter was being reviewed by the Board, and/or that WMF was starting an RfC, would have been fine. Community consultations or an RfC could have taken place at that time without using outside contractor.
I don't appreciate being surprised. Given that the focus of this effort in WMF is inside of its Communications Department, I think that staff should be especially proactive in communicating what they are doing with regards to major initiatives, and prior to engaging in a contracting process with donors' funds.
Staff appear not to have addressed, at least in public on English Wikipedia, the sockpuppeting allegations with regards to Snøhetta. [1] [2].
Also worth noting is the RfC, which was previously mentioned in this thread: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c.... The current count as of the time of my writing this email is 26 support and 292 oppose.
This series of events should have been handled differently. Nobody is perfect, but there are problems here that appear to be more significant than a simple one time failure to communicate on an issue of moderate importance.
One oversight that I made in my earlier email, and which I will correct with an apology for not stating this earlier (I too can be wrong), is that problems in this series of events could include decisions that were made by the WMF Board. However, without access to WMF's internal communications, it is impossible to know how this series of events happened.
I am not advocating adding stress to people who do good work, or people who have so much work that they can't realistically handle everything that they're told to do. It is possible that staff are simply overworked. However, while I don't enjoy writing about this topic, sometimes changing personnel is for the best. This happens in government organizations and companies, and I imagine happens on occasion in WMF, although often in private. Also, in WMF and in affiliate boards, sometimes board members are replaced as a result of elections. In the community, we occasionally revoke people's permissions or block people in public, and here too people sometimes are replaced as a result of elections. I realize that this is a topic that can be stressful, but I think that candor is appropriate. I feel rooted in the English Wikipedia community and I think that what I say in this paragraph is consistent with how our community works, and is consistent with how I see government agencies sometimes work in the United States. At the same time (and I wish that I said this in my previous email) the point isn't to have a culture where people should be fearful on a daily basis. I would hope that generally things go OK for people, and that one time mistakes which are easily reversed don't result in someone feeling fearful. What is more concerning is a pattern of problems, or an error that results in a single major problem that is difficult to reverse.
I personally have made considerable efforts during my personal time to try to address what I heard was widespread fear among WMF staff about communicating in public, and that interest continues. A "culture of fear" can limit communication and erodes trust. At the same time, I think that the WMF Board and staff should communicate proactively about initiatives and decisions with significant implications.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leilaoes
Thanks Pine, +1, in particular for this sentence, which goes beyond the legal status of the brand name: "I think that the Wikipedia brand is, in a way, the brand of the community. WMF is the steward of the brand, and should not use the brand in ways which the community has not authorized by consensus." Frans *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair +31 6 5333 9499
Hoi, I totally agree that it is about community.. There are some 200 Wikipedia communities, there is Commons, Wikisource and the community I am most involved in Wikidata. What ties it together is the organisation of it all. THAT is Wikimedia for me, both the org and the movement. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 12:12, Frans Grijzenhout frans@wikimedia.nl wrote:
Thanks Pine, +1, in particular for this sentence, which goes beyond the legal status of the brand name: "I think that the Wikipedia brand is, in a way, the brand of the community. WMF is the steward of the brand, and should not use the brand in ways which the community has not authorized by consensus." Frans *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
+31 6 5333 9499
*Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland* Mariaplaats 3 - 3511 LH Utrecht Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 http://www.wikimedia.nl/
Op zo 2 feb. 2020 om 01:31 schreef Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Hello,
I have waited to return to this thread until I could clear enough space in my mind to try to address it thoroughly. Apologies for the delay. I will try to address multiple topics in one email.
I think that the Wikipedia brand is, in a way, the brand of the community. WMF is the steward of the brand, and should not use the brand in ways which the community has not authorized by consensus.
There was a previous mailing discussion on Wikimedia-l in September 2019. I would have expected an update after that discussion if WMF was considering moving ahead with rebranding itself. An email announcing that the matter was being reviewed by the Board, and/or that WMF was starting an RfC, would have been fine. Community consultations or an RfC could have taken place at that time without using outside contractor.
I don't appreciate being surprised. Given that the focus of this effort in WMF is inside of its Communications Department, I think that staff should be especially proactive in communicating what they are doing with regards to major initiatives, and prior to engaging in a contracting process with donors' funds.
Staff appear not to have addressed, at least in public on English Wikipedia, the sockpuppeting allegations with regards to Snøhetta. [1] [2].
Also worth noting is the RfC, which was previously mentioned in this thread:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c...
. The current count as of the time of my writing this email is 26 support and 292 oppose.
This series of events should have been handled differently. Nobody is perfect, but there are problems here that appear to be more significant than a simple one time failure to communicate on an issue of moderate importance.
One oversight that I made in my earlier email, and which I will correct with an apology for not stating this earlier (I too can be wrong), is that problems in this series of events could include decisions that were made by the WMF Board. However, without access to WMF's internal communications, it is impossible to know how this series of events happened.
I am not advocating adding stress to people who do good work, or people who have so much work that they can't realistically handle everything that they're told to do. It is possible that staff are simply overworked. However, while I don't enjoy writing about this topic, sometimes changing personnel is for the best. This happens in government organizations and companies, and I imagine happens on occasion in WMF, although often in private. Also, in WMF and in affiliate boards, sometimes board members are replaced as a result of elections. In the community, we occasionally revoke people's permissions or block people in public, and here too people sometimes are replaced as a result of elections. I realize that this is a topic that can be stressful, but I think that candor is appropriate. I feel rooted in the English Wikipedia community and I think that what I say in this paragraph is consistent with how our community works, and is consistent with how I see government agencies sometimes work in the United States. At the same time (and I wish that I said this in my previous email) the point isn't to have a culture where people should be fearful on a daily basis. I would hope that generally things go OK for people, and that one time mistakes which are easily reversed don't result in someone feeling fearful. What is more concerning is a pattern of problems, or an error that results in a single major problem that is difficult to reverse.
I personally have made considerable efforts during my personal time to try to address what I heard was widespread fear among WMF staff about communicating in public, and that interest continues. A "culture of fear" can limit communication and erodes trust. At the same time, I think that the WMF Board and staff should communicate proactively about initiatives and decisions with significant implications.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leilaoes
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 you want an overview of the brand project I recently made an interview with Zack McCune at WMF about it.
You can find it on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WP_74_-_right_on_brand.mp3
or, if you prefer regular podcast players, here: http://wikipediapodden.se/episode-74-right-on-brand/
/ Jan Ainali
Den sön 2 feb. 2020 kl 16:04 skrev Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, I totally agree that it is about community.. There are some 200 Wikipedia communities, there is Commons, Wikisource and the community I am most involved in Wikidata. What ties it together is the organisation of it all. THAT is Wikimedia for me, both the org and the movement. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 12:12, Frans Grijzenhout frans@wikimedia.nl wrote:
Thanks Pine, +1, in particular for this sentence, which goes beyond the legal status of the brand name: "I think that the Wikipedia brand is,
in a
way, the brand of the community. WMF is the steward of the brand, and should not use the brand in ways which the community has not authorized
by
consensus." Frans *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
+31 6 5333 9499
*Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland* Mariaplaats 3 - 3511 LH Utrecht Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 http://www.wikimedia.nl/
Op zo 2 feb. 2020 om 01:31 schreef Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Hello,
I have waited to return to this thread until I could clear enough space in my mind to try to address it thoroughly. Apologies for the delay. I will try to address multiple topics in one email.
I think that the Wikipedia brand is, in a way, the brand of the community. WMF is the steward of the brand, and should not use the brand in ways which the community has not authorized by consensus.
There was a previous mailing discussion on Wikimedia-l in September 2019. I would have expected an update after that discussion if WMF was considering moving ahead with rebranding itself. An email announcing that the matter was being reviewed by the Board, and/or that WMF was starting an RfC, would have been fine. Community consultations or an RfC could have taken place at that time without using outside contractor.
I don't appreciate being surprised. Given that the focus of this effort in WMF is inside of its Communications Department, I think that staff should be especially proactive in communicating what they are doing with regards to major initiatives, and prior to engaging in a contracting process with donors' funds.
Staff appear not to have addressed, at least in public on English Wikipedia, the sockpuppeting allegations with regards to Snøhetta. [1] [2].
Also worth noting is the RfC, which was previously mentioned in this thread:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_c...
. The current count as of the time of my writing this email is 26 support and 292 oppose.
This series of events should have been handled differently. Nobody is perfect, but there are problems here that appear to be more significant than a simple one time failure to communicate on an issue of moderate importance.
One oversight that I made in my earlier email, and which I will correct with an apology for not stating this earlier (I too can be wrong), is that problems in this series of events could include decisions that were made by the WMF Board. However, without access to WMF's internal communications, it is impossible to know how this series of events happened.
I am not advocating adding stress to people who do good work, or people who have so much work that they can't realistically handle everything that they're told to do. It is possible that staff are simply overworked. However, while I don't enjoy writing about this topic, sometimes changing personnel is for the best. This happens in government organizations and companies, and I imagine happens on occasion in WMF, although often in private. Also, in WMF and in affiliate boards, sometimes board members are replaced as a result of elections. In the community, we occasionally revoke people's permissions or block people in public, and here too people sometimes are replaced as a result of elections. I realize that this is a topic that can be stressful, but I think that candor is appropriate. I feel rooted in the English Wikipedia community and I think that what I say in this paragraph is consistent with how our community works, and is consistent with how I see government agencies sometimes work in the United States. At the same time (and I wish that I said this in my previous email) the point isn't to have a culture where people should be fearful on a daily basis. I would hope that generally things go OK for people, and that one time mistakes which are easily reversed don't result in someone feeling fearful. What is more concerning is a pattern of problems, or an error that results in a single major problem that is difficult to reverse.
I personally have made considerable efforts during my personal time to try to address what I heard was widespread fear among WMF staff about communicating in public, and that interest continues. A "culture of fear" can limit communication and erodes trust. At the same time, I think that the WMF Board and staff should communicate proactively about initiatives and decisions with significant implications.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leilaoes
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@lists.wikimedia.org