:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
- Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
- Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10], and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
Is it perhaps a common misconception that Wikipedia is Wikimedia, or visa versa?
On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10], and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Pe marți, 26 februarie 2019, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com a scris:
Is it perhaps a common misconception that Wikipedia is Wikimedia, or visa versa?
My personal experience, which seems to be confirmed by this study, is that people simply have no idea what Wikimedia is. :)
Selling the changes to outsiders will be easy, we'll see how it goes with insiders.
Strainu
On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible.
::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and
is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata
at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert
the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10], and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12]
or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-
world-see-wikimedia-brands/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
Defining_Emerging_Communities
[6] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-
wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
[7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-
May/029991.html
3AStrengthening_and_unifying_the_visual_identity_of_ Wikimedia_projects_-_a_step_towards_maturity_-_Wikimania_2007.pdf&page=56
[9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
brands/2030_research_and_planning/project_summary
[10] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_
and_Wikimedia_Brand_Research_Report.pdf
[11] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_
strategy_proposal_for_2030.pdf
Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback via email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but wanted to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10], and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback via email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but wanted to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10], and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Wikipedia is one brand. In some of our "markets" Wikibooks is of greater relevance. We destroy important brands that are important in the alphabetisation of real people.
When you think that all there is is Wikipedia. Fine but you are wrong. Commons will gain relevance because of this !@#$$% legislation that makes copyright even more problematic. Commons is the biggest public domain only repository of illustrations. Given that with the Wikidatafication it becomes easier to open up the Commons content, we have yet another brand that is not Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is about articles and not about subjects. Wikidata is about subjects, Commons is about subjects and all Wikipedias together are about subjects. In the current understanding of most people Wikipedia is a single entity never mind the language. It is this approach, this bias that will hurt us badly, it already does.
So yes, real life problems. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 16:21, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is
to
share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition
to
this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder,
even
prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link
on
the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how
the
world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller
projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian government that they are not really Wikipedia Russia. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition to this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder, even prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
From what I know:
* The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata. * Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
Seddon
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian government that they are not really Wikipedia Russia. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is
to
share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition
to
this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder,
even
prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link
on
the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how
the
world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller
projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki. Kind regards Ziko
Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019 um 18:17 Uhr schrieb Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org:
From what I know:
- The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
- Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
Seddon
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian government that they are not really Wikipedia Russia. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is
to
share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition
to
this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder,
even
prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias and hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link
on
the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how
the
world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller
projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Community and Audience Engagement Associate* *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
From the first text:
" Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia."
I also think that Wikipedia is a much stronger brand than Wikimedia is, but I have been talking about this issue the last weeks in different places with way very different people and they all say that they will have real problems if they change the name from Wikimedia to Wikipedia. Legal issues will be more common if the name convention is changed from Wikimedia to Wikipedia, as you can be responsible (country law's depending) of what it is written on Wikipedia. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 6:39 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_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
Thank you for taking the time to explain, Chris. Actually we need some kind of good terms to replace some older terms, but the challenge is that they have to fit the current situation - or, as I understand you, to introduce a change of the current situation. Kind regards Ziko
Am Di., 9. Apr. 2019 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_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
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_ Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_ Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ 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
Absolutely agree with Galder. WikiMedia is not only Wikipedia. Is not just an encyclopedia, but all other wiki projects. And is also a movement for openness, a philosophy, a way to do things. Means collaborations, partners, a lot of other staffs than an encyclopedia doesn't include.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |* *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project* https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne
Il giorno mer 10 apr 2019 alle ore 11:14 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> ha scritto:
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not, consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into consideration.
At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a summary of what I expressed to them:
- Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
- Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia" brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g. China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition in certain markets needs much more careful study.
- That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia. I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia" would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than Wikipedia today.
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC, et al) working with it.
Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do. But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and WMF employees, may not be aware of.
- Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70% literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand, having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks being the wrong message at the wrong time.
- Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully. Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above all others.
I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally. Much of this is because our own community communications channels have broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
-Andrew
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ 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
Thank Andrew for summing up all the issues around this rebranding issue. I really dont believe it should be done. I can’t see that this could be done without community consultation. I doubt all versions of wikipedia could agree in a unanimous move. How would Wikipedia be named if wikimedia takes its name? As a wikimedian, I think that Wikimedia is just a lot more than Wikipedia, and that the similarity of the names already establishes a link between the two.
Kind regards,
Natacha / Nattes à chat
Le 10 avr. 2019 à 21:05, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not, consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into consideration.
At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a summary of what I expressed to them:
- Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
- Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g. China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition in certain markets needs much more careful study.
- That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia. I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia" would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than Wikipedia today.
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC, et al) working with it.
Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do. But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and WMF employees, may not be aware of.
- Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70% literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand, having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks being the wrong message at the wrong time.
- Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully. Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above all others.
I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally. Much of this is because our own community communications channels have broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
-Andrew
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Is there a middle ground that would satisfy all the objections? E.g., "Wikipedias and media" as a brand identifier?
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:25 PM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Thank Andrew for summing up all the issues around this rebranding issue. I really dont believe it should be done. I can’t see that this could be done without community consultation. I doubt all versions of wikipedia could agree in a unanimous move. How would Wikipedia be named if wikimedia takes its name? As a wikimedian, I think that Wikimedia is just a lot more than Wikipedia, and that the similarity of the names already establishes a link between the two.
Kind regards,
Natacha / Nattes à chat
Le 10 avr. 2019 à 21:05, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not, consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into consideration.
At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a summary of what I expressed to them:
- Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
- Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g. China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition in certain markets needs much more careful study.
- That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia. I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia" would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than Wikipedia today.
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC, et al) working with it.
Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do. But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and WMF employees, may not be aware of.
- Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70% literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand, having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks being the wrong message at the wrong time.
- Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully. Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above all others.
I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally. Much of this is because our own community communications channels have broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
-Andrew
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed.
Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it would create new problems with non-WMF-wikis.
The OpenWiki Foundation?
Michael
On 10 Apr 2019, at 21:51, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed.
Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it would create new problems with non-WMF-wikis. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Andrew,
While I appreciate your huge knowledge of English Wikipedia, this whole email - being so en.wp centric - sounds like an argument for simplification and for "going with the majority". Here is how I see it, as a member of a much smaller community.
În mie., 10 apr. 2019 la 22:05, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a scris:
I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not, consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into consideration.
At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a summary of what I expressed to them:
- Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
That is absolutely true.That's why I suggested that the proposal be considered in the context of the strategic discussion.
- Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g. China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition in certain markets needs much more careful study.
- That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia. I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia" would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than Wikipedia today.
I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were created relatively regularly and many people who started with Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other projects.
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that was not true even 3 years ago.
While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC, et al) working with it.
Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM or photographers.
Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do. But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and WMF employees, may not be aware of.
- Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70% literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand, having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is required to understand how data is organized).
What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks being the wrong message at the wrong time.
- Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
I disagree with the second phrase. Just because Wikimedia Commons would become WikiCommons (the proposal which I support the most and which has the lowest chance of happening without a tremendous scandal) the community and their policies would not be affected beyond a simple search-and-replace. I think of the branding as an exonym - we might or might not like it, but it doesn't change who we are - it doesn't even change the endonym we use.
Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above all others.
This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same holds true for the renaming.
Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
Regards, Strainu
I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally. Much of this is because our own community communications channels have broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
-Andrew
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Responses below:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were created relatively regularly and many people who started with Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other projects.
For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collabor...
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
that
was not true even 3 years ago.
While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.
Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM or photographers.
This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.
Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is required to understand how data is organized).
I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright" as the biggest user challenge we have. :)
This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same holds true for the renaming.
Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.
Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.
Thanks -Andrew
Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand. It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.
Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with the focus and policies of one project. So if we shift towards calling things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out of our way to expand its connotations. That takes an internal campaign: w thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.
SJ
P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names, I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.
--
On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih, andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Responses below:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were created relatively regularly and many people who started with Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other projects.
For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collabor...
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
that
was not true even 3 years ago.
While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.
Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM or photographers.
This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.
Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is required to understand how data is organized).
I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright" as the biggest user challenge we have. :)
This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same holds true for the renaming.
Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.
Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.
Thanks -Andrew _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad argument. Use some hindsight and compare Wikipedia and its impact with Wikidata at the same age, do the same for Commons. It is also a useless argument because success comes in different shapes and forms and we should foster success and value where we find it. The biggest issue is not to be overwhelmed with the complacency that comes with what is mistaken as the success of English Wikipedia. Complacency because English Wikipedia could be much better.
We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It is where over 50% of our resources are spend. It is maintained by a bias for everything related to what we do in English. We promote Wikipedia as a tool for university students and its focus is the USA. The reality is that we need high school students to write articles in most of our other languages. Oh and do not rely on research; Wikipedia research is biased because it is almost exclusively English Wikipedia what is studied. Even when it is not, it relies on studies with the same bias.
When we truly want to be more international, we should focus on raising money outside of the AngloSaxon countries. The money is there, just consider known statistics. Spend everything that is raised "elsewhere", elsewhere and add significant bias where we have the best 'return on investment'. NB it is my business to know fundraising and we under perform in the Netherlands by a large margin. There is no "need" to change our really successful fundraising except when we use it as an instrument to attract attention for our brands.
Both Wikidata and Commons are English. It is not that there are no projects that use other languages within these projects but it is dominantly English in the same way Wikipedia is dominantly English. Giving examples of these projects is mistaking exceptions for the rule. Case in point; show me all the Wikidata editors and show me those editors that do not communicate in English.. show me their success.
When this notion that Wikimedia is English is to be countered, consider how we can share our resources. For me the best example how we miss the boat is found in Wikidata; we were promised an official replacement of Listeria. Listeria is great but not good enough. The promise has not been kept, we are still pissing in the wind and manually updating lists in the Wikipedias.
Please let us have a hard look at the efficiency at which we "share the sum of all knowledge". Once the giddiness has left the house, let us work in earnest and expand the 50% percent of our traffic and serve the underserved. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 06:38, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand. It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.
Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with the focus and policies of one project. So if we shift towards calling things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out of our way to expand its connotations. That takes an internal campaign: w thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.
SJ
P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names, I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.
--
On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih, andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Responses below:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were created relatively regularly and many people who started with Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other projects.
For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was
one
of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say
that
the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collabor...
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a
way
that
was not true even 3 years ago.
While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project?
As
a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project
we
have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.
Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM or photographers.
This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full
force
of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons.
It's
mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.
Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is required to understand how data is organized).
I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to
read
to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright" as the biggest user challenge we have. :)
This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same holds true for the renaming.
Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan
Wikipedia
where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.
Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.
Thanks -Andrew _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Thank you for your well argued point of view. I followed the statistics as provided by Erik Zachte for a long time and the trend was slowly but surely where based on the statistics of Wikipedia alone English Wikipedia traffic moved slowly but surely from over fifty to under fifty percent. Then there is traffic from everything else..
As to accounting for the spending of the Wikimedia Foundation itself, MediaWiki is developed for Wikipedia. Development of Wikidata is done by the German chapter. So spending of over 50% for English Wikipedia is better than plausible. When new features are introduced, they fit English Wikipedia perfectly. There is no indication whatsoever that features are developed specifically for the small Wikipedias. It is easy enough to argue that many of the "must have" Wikipedia features are an impediment for the development of the small Wikipedias and as Research is focused on English as well, there is not much to say otherwise.
Now, please move on and consider the other points I made. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:55, Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic.
It
is where over 50% of our resources are spend.
Do we?
Based on what? _______________________________________________ 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., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad argument.
You misunderstand me. I do not mean in importance: Wikidata will surely be equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two are hard to compare and not independent.
I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long. Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable websites; the standard visual template for reference works.
Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal of the original.
====
That said !
Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I reckon a central branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions (including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual. This takes a combination of software, translators, and brand focus. It is the obvious way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and colleagues.
Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an updraft for all.
Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network campaign.
We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now relandscape the entire neighborhood.
SJ
p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return to its original name, MultimediaWiki.
Hoi, The basic assumption of Wikipedia is the article. When we are truly to reach out and take a next step, it has to be more than Wikipedia, more than obsessing with articles. People are not looking for articles, they are looking for information on subjects. Information on subjects may be delivered in the format of articles but it may also be delivered in the format of books data presentations and images.
This obsession of Wikipedia being the objective of all of that we do, the format that is to apply to everything we do is holding us back. A few examples; we do not officially present the data of Wikidata in a format that is useful to humans. Such formats have existed for years in the format of Reasonator and recently in the format of Scholia. Compare that to the bickering about including Wikidata in Wikipedia and it is obvious how Wikipedia is holding us back. Several volunteers used data from many sources and created a wealth of Wikipedia articles that would otherwise have hardly any at all. The verdict: it is not by a community and consequently it cannot be maintained. No research has been done, no outreach happened. It is a success story that does not fit the mold and is ignored. Within the movement there is a general agreement that the gender gap affects us all. It is why we celebrate the success of the diminishment of this gap and rightfully so as it is pervasive and recognisable in all of our projects. It is however not our biggest bias. Our biggest bias is the AngloAmerican bias.
The only way out of it I see is in a change of outlook. Our outlook needs to be less Wikipedia and its articles and more about what DO we have on a subject and expose them in any form we have. Expose them together with all the organisations that have a compatible outlook. When we actively engage people who seek information by asking them to expand on what they seek, we will slowly but surely increase the amount of information we hold and have this information in all of our languages.
This different approach can happily coexist with our Wikipedia bias. It does not take much to get it of the ground. What it does take is the realisation that Wikimedia is NOT Wikipedia. This is necessary for this experiment to start.. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 17:56, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a
sad
argument.
You misunderstand me. I do not mean in importance: Wikidata will surely be equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two are hard to compare and not independent.
I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long. Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable websites; the standard visual template for reference works.
Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal of the original.
====
That said !
Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I reckon a central branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions (including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual. This takes a combination of software, translators, and brand focus. It is the obvious way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and colleagues.
Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an updraft for all.
Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network campaign.
We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now relandscape the entire neighborhood.
SJ
p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return to its original name, MultimediaWiki. _______________________________________________ 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
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future.
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors. Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 19:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future. _______________________________________________ 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, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors. Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
Dear Rebecca, Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more... I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters, affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/ structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in themselves, the end goal.
So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the Foundation provides, exactly?
If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience, then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
-- Phoebe
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference?
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors. Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
Dear Rebecca, Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more... I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters, affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/ structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in themselves, the end goal.
So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the Foundation provides, exactly?
If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience, then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
-- Phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Yes there is a noticeable difference. Costs for changing websites, stationary and the like are not budgeted for. Given that budgets do not account for such nonsense it is not an "easy" test. It is also not a test because when the test proves negative you double the cost. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 10:45, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference?
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <rebeccanineil@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
people
to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors. Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
Dear Rebecca, Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more... I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
ecosystem
of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters, affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/ structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not,
in
themselves, the end goal.
So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all
of
the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
need
to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with
an
easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
and
be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the Foundation provides, exactly?
If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation
in
the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
audience,
then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
-- Phoebe _______________________________________________ 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
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts and reports as that entity.
Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision by each board, and each board should be free to make their own decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and for which there are no reported credible tests.
If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name "Wikimedia".
Fae
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference?
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors. Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
Dear Rebecca, Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more... I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters, affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/ structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in themselves, the end goal.
So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the Foundation provides, exactly?
If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience, then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
-- Phoebe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Fæ
I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the UK chapter, with you are probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%. When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to shove, you do what they tell you to.
JPS
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts and reports as that entity.
Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision by each board, and each board should be free to make their own decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and for which there are no reported credible tests.
If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name "Wikimedia".
Fae
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference?
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
rebeccanineil@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
people
to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
have
some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
very
keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
editors.
Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
that
message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
Dear Rebecca, Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more... I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
ecosystem
of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
chapters,
affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
the
larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
supporting
existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
do
this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
directly
editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
group/
structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
work
largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
we
all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
not, in
themselves, the end goal.
So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
all of
the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
the
several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
need
to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
with an
easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
and
be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the
Wikipedia
Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the Foundation provides, exactly?
If the answer is that this change will definitely increase
participation in
the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
audience,
then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
-- Phoebe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
The members of the chapters are volunteers, so free to simply walk away any time they choose. Shove too hard and you have no chapter. Who wins? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Pryor-Summers Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Fæ
I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the UK chapter, with you are probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%. When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to shove, you do what they tell you to.
JPS
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts and reports as that entity.
Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision by each board, and each board should be free to make their own decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and for which there are no reported credible tests.
If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name "Wikimedia".
Fae
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference?
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
rebeccanineil@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
people
to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
have
some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
very
keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
editors.
Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
that
message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
Dear Rebecca, Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more... I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
ecosystem
of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
chapters,
affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
the
larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
supporting
existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
do
this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
directly
editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
group/
structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
work
largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
we
all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
not, in
themselves, the end goal.
So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
all of
the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
the
several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
need
to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
with an
easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
and
be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the
Wikipedia
Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the Foundation provides, exactly?
If the answer is that this change will definitely increase
participation in
the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
audience,
then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
-- Phoebe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
Also reminding that most of us who are members of national chapters are volunteers at the projects, and many of us were in the projects for long before joining a chapter or UG.
If the WMF spoils the chapters, we will find our way and do the same thing we are doing for ages, advancing good quality knowledge free and open for everyone, with or without WMF support. It is obviously better if we are all in the same boat, but it's important to leave it clear that it is not a fatality.
Regards, Paulo
Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escreveu no dia segunda, 15/04/2019 à(s) 08:29:
The members of the chapters are volunteers, so free to simply walk away any time they choose. Shove too hard and you have no chapter. Who wins? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Pryor-Summers Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Fæ
I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the Foundation in the way you suggest. To take the UK chapter, with you are probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%. When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to shove, you do what they tell you to.
JPS
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts and reports as that entity.
Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision by each board, and each board should be free to make their own decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and for which there are no reported credible tests.
If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name "Wikimedia".
Fae
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if
there’s
any noticeable difference?
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
rebeccanineil@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree Galder!
I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
people
to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
have
some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
very
keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
editors.
Presenting our group as something more than people who are
experienced
Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
that
message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
Dear Rebecca, Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more... I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group
I'm
currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
ecosystem
of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
chapters,
affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
the
larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
supporting
existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
do
this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and
that
participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
directly
editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
group/
structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
work
largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
we
all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
not, in
themselves, the end goal.
So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
all of
the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
the
several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
need
to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building
free
knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or
"Wikipedia
Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
with an
easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings,
perhaps
becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach
out,
and
be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the
Wikipedia
Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the Foundation provides, exactly?
If the answer is that this change will definitely increase
participation in
the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of
the
various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
audience,
then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard
to
imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of
the
Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
-- Phoebe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
Em dom, 14 de abr de 2019 09:54, Fæ faewik@gmail.com escreveu:
(...) If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name "Wikimedia". (...)
The real issue is the community not stopping the moron who changed a colored logo historically associated to diversity into a tedious P&B version and changed the WMF blog skin to a set of aggressive and repulsive colors.
Not stopping a disease in their very initial stages have a price.
Listing comercial entities as competitors with WMF projects is the worse thing I've forced to read on my life.
[[m:User:555]] P.S.: the "m" portion on my signature is a interwiki, not my gender, if someone don't knows
Luiz
If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name "Wikimedia".
Surely WMF projects are in competition with commercial entities, and very successfully so? Wikipedia vs Britannica and Encarta; Wikivoyage vs Wiktravel; Wikinews vs Wikitribune; and so forth. We celebrate those projects successes ...
JPS
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Jennifer Pryor-Summers jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 15/04/2019 à(s) 19:05:
Luiz
If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name "Wikimedia".
Surely WMF projects are in competition with commercial entities, and very successfully so? Wikipedia vs Britannica and Encarta; Wikivoyage vs Wiktravel; Wikinews vs Wikitribune; and so forth. We celebrate those projects successes ...
JPS _______________________________________________ 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 Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should the WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down, on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and there is very little room for collaborative writing.
And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia articles.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should the WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down, on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
I'll try to be brief. At an intuitive level I'm against implementing this particular proposal: Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia. After reading this thread and having conversations related to the subject with others this are my thoughts around it:
- Timing for reaching proposals: The proposals seems like things that should arise from a strategy and not things that shape or embed on a strategy. Taking this decision, or any decision as a matter of fact, before a strategy is defined seems odd to me, independently of the strategy result itself. To others in this thread, it also seems like an outdated proposal. Shouldn't the strategy shed light onto these matters, and not the proposals shed light upon the strategy?
- Implications: It seems that the subject of awareness is approached from a linear perspective, just the perception of a brand (If I'm wrong I apologize beforehand). Again, at an intuitive level, the costs and risks of such an implementation seem huge: Some raised legal concerns, in some particular countries or regions, some people could be more exposed, even put in danger, being directly associated with Wikipedia, while under the Wikimedia umbrella, those people might have some degree of separation that also brings a layer of protection; Some raised costs concerns: Rebranding could carry thousands of hours of work from volunteers, maybe a lot of the material provided might need to be re-written, re-adjusted. Most of this work seems that it would need to be carried out by volunteers; Will a decision like this undermine the morale of the movement as a whole? And on top of it, if we add a layer of financial costs, like changing agreements, domains, banners, cards, printed material, videos, etc., a modification based on this proposal seems like it has to be well thought out, and definitely not improvise, before is taken into consideration, and again, the same question than before comes to mind, that a decision like this, in this particular moment, should come from the strategy and not the opposite.
- Coordination: To me, the lunch of the proposal also seems more like an independent approach than a coordinated effort towards a higher goal, since a strategy for the whole movement is being discussed at the same time, and the proposals seem to entangle the discussion at some level, as proved at least by this particular thread. I'm not trying to underestimate the difficulties of coordination but to highlight that we should try our best to be as coordinated as possible, our limited energy will be driven more effectively, and if we do so, hopefully, we might generate a bigger impact as a whole.
I believe that some proposals from the study are very valuable, I just really don't think this is the right timing for proposing changes, that timing has to do, at least at some level, with coordination (which should never be underestimated as a difficult and consuming task), and that some changes need to be analyzed from a multi-layered, and multi-location perspective, to be able to make a decision as informed as we could be, and risk or not into implementing changes based on that information.
If could make a suggestion, is to embrace all the information that came from the study to enrich the discussion about strategy at large, but refrain to implement any proposals until a wider strategy is defined.
Cheers,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:37 AM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and there is very little room for collaborative writing.
And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia articles.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should
the
WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS _______________________________________________ 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
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any) proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made in WikiNews.
Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head, WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head, some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia, but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)
On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it. Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between Wikipedia and the other sister projects.
Best, Paulo
Jennifer Pryor-Summers jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should the WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down, on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or 15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.
One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago. Rebranding ourselves after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social movement. When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and perhaps others. But I don't think that just because we have more money now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this stage in the evolution of our movement.
Thanks, Pharos
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any) proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made in WikiNews.
Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head, WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head, some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia, but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)
On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it. Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between Wikipedia and the other sister projects.
Best, Paulo
Jennifer Pryor-Summers jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should
the
WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about, the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for both problems.
One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem, because the Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).
So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?
Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all, other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's shadow. Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't like that outcome at all. Also it would be much harder to keep foundation and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of "blurring". Those are real harms.
I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on (and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.
How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The WikiKnowledge Foundation"?
- It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia, WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?) - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's clear what it means. - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a project with that name. - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used. As a domain, " wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.
If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation for example.
FT2
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or 15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.
One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago. Rebranding ourselves after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social movement. When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and perhaps others. But I don't think that just because we have more money now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this stage in the evolution of our movement.
Thanks, Pharos
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it
was
just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any) proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged
with
one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the
Portuguese
version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that
project
at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is
made
in WikiNews.
Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one
head,
WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another
head,
some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia, but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that
thrives
there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)
On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it. Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between Wikipedia and the other sister projects.
Best, Paulo
Jennifer Pryor-Summers jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is
not
thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should
the
WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding
would
be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS _______________________________________________ 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
Good arguments, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FT2 Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:54 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about, the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for both problems.
One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem, because the Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).
So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?
Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all, other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's shadow. Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't like that outcome at all. Also it would be much harder to keep foundation and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of "blurring". Those are real harms.
I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on (and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.
How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The WikiKnowledge Foundation"?
- It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia, WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?) - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's clear what it means. - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a project with that name. - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used. As a domain, " wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.
If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation for example.
FT2
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or 15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.
One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago. Rebranding ourselves after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social movement. When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and perhaps others. But I don't think that just because we have more money now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this stage in the evolution of our movement.
Thanks, Pharos
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it
was
just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any) proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged
with
one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the
Portuguese
version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that
project
at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is
made
in WikiNews.
Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one
head,
WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another
head,
some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia, but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that
thrives
there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)
On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it. Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between Wikipedia and the other sister projects.
Best, Paulo
Jennifer Pryor-Summers jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is
not
thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should
the
WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding
would
be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago. Rebranding ourselves after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social movement. When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
Yes. You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
(And if you could, you'd exclude all other projects + scope from the movement and erase the breadth that gives life to it. )
FT2
I don't think we get to make grand claims about what "the vast majority" think, without some good basis for it.
More pragmatically, I suspect that most editors think of themselves as Wikipedia/other project *editors*. But those who truly think of themselves as members of a *movement* - our GLAM volunteers, our regional/country bodies, volunteers in outreach and universities, editors and others who truly see themselves as members of a movement and not just editors of knowledge - probably don't think of it in terms of "only limited to Wikipedia", but in far broader terms - and if they don't, then we might want to gently suggest that broader vision to them and not just concur that it's limited in that way.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 07:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
JPS _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not? Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
JPS _______________________________________________ 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
Gerard
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
I didn't say that at all. I merely suggest that the reality is that the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have not done that test. If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is, that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
JPS
With respect to popularity per Alexa:
Wikipedia is 5th Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies) Wiktionary is 432 Wikibooks is 1,892 Wikisource is 2,790 Wikiquote is 3,953 Wikidata is 8,848 Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals) Wikivoyage is 14,850 Wikinews is 60,829
There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of course would require consensus.
James
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
I didn't say that at all. I merely suggest that the reality is that the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have not done that test. If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is, that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
JPS _______________________________________________ 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
James
Readership and writership -- to coin a phrase -- aren't the same thing. English-language Wikipedia may be the fifth-most visited website in the world, but it has major problems, for example, over a million un- or badly-referenced articles, as revealed in a recent WMF Research paper and blogpost. English-language Wikinews may be at 60,829 (and so doing a lot better than Wikitribune at 435,723) but it's still the case that its three latest news stories are 2, 7 and 10 days old. This is not the picture of sites "doing fairly well".
JPS
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
With respect to popularity per Alexa:
Wikipedia is 5th Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies) Wiktionary is 432 Wikibooks is 1,892 Wikisource is 2,790 Wikiquote is 3,953 Wikidata is 8,848 Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals) Wikivoyage is 14,850 Wikinews is 60,829
There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of course would require consensus.
James
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
I didn't say that at all. I merely suggest that the reality is that
the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
the
minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have not done that test. If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
is,
that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
that
the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
JPS _______________________________________________ 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
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
With respect to popularity per Alexa:
Wikipedia is 5th Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies) Wiktionary is 432 Wikibooks is 1,892 Wikisource is 2,790 Wikiquote is 3,953 Wikidata is 8,848 Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals) Wikivoyage is 14,850 Wikinews is 60,829
There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of course would require consensus.
hey what brilliant idea! i'd support merging wikinews into a something like wikijournal. besides the more traditional ways like preprint server or mail, i'd find it especially charming if one option of peer review is the wiki-way, via "tag the quality and the type", maybe even allow different groups to set such tags. and not (only) the wikinews way, or, ironically, the nupedia way, where an editor decides "publish or not", and articles get stuck into a "preprint", "private", "sandbox" namespace. is this something which you think might work?
rupert
Jennifer, So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?
As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know, Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to offer.
To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the majority preventing change.
Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
I didn't say that at all. I merely suggest that the reality is that the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have not done that test. If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is, that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
JPS _______________________________________________ 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
Gerard,
I'm not advocating ignoring anyone. Decisions have to be made and they will be made by the Foundation. The best decisions will be made when they consult the community. It may be that the decision that they eventually take will be for a course of action supported by the majority, or it may be for a course of action supported by a minority. In neither case are they being ignored.
You, like the rest of us, have the opportunity to present facts and arguments to the WMF in support of the decision you favour.
JPS
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:56 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Jennifer, So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?
As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know, Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to offer.
To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the majority preventing change.
Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
Gerard
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
I didn't say that at all. I merely suggest that the reality is that
the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
the
minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have not done that test. If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
is,
that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
that
the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
JPS _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again) Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can share my work/your work on your wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future. _______________________________________________ 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
To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the record, I am administrator on both projects.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:31 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again) Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can share my work/your work on your wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future. _______________________________________________ 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
In our community (Swedish) we embrace Wikidata wholeheartedly and we have found solution to take care of vandalism. Literialist, show changes on Wikidata on Wikipedia etc.
I believe it is more an attitude issue then a technical one.
I agree with earlier comments that English Wikipedia is not everything and regarding use of Wikidata it is not a leader
Anders
Den 2019-04-13 kl. 21:01, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the record, I am administrator on both projects.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:31 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again) Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can share my work/your work on your wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Andrew! Let me repeat here my vote for “Wikidata” as the brand name, too
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2019, at 9:05 PM, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not, consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into consideration.
At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a summary of what I expressed to them:
- Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
- Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g. China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition in certain markets needs much more careful study.
- That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia. I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia" would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than Wikipedia today.
- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC, et al) working with it.
Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do. But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and WMF employees, may not be aware of.
- Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70% literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand, having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks being the wrong message at the wrong time.
- Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully. Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above all others.
I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally. Much of this is because our own community communications channels have broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
-Andrew
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation would vanish even more our sister projects.
On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying totally with one of the products.
And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name, but on the product and the logo families. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Strainu strainu10@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a scris:
At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter" and "user group". "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)
For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
This is not a matter to be left at the foundation's sole discretion (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
Strainu
You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently exist.
Thanks,
Chris
(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Nonetheless, the 'what ifs' are worrisome is the proposal is accepted. People (govts, enterprises, etc) would think it's a mistake with the name Wikimedia and incorrectly deduce (after some Google search on their part) that the name is Wikipedia Russia, not Wikimedia Russia.
El mar., 9 abr. 2019 a las 12:17, Joseph Seddon (jseddon@wikimedia.org) escribió:
From what I know:
- The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
- Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
Seddon
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian government that they are not really Wikipedia Russia. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030
goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is
to
share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition
to
this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder,
even
prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias
and
hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful
feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members
and
individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using
your
closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the
link
on
the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community
review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how
the
world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted
to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as
part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India,
China,
Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects
and
values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed
a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also
made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from
Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller
projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia
Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to
speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary
of
community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Community and Audience Engagement Associate* *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, * The global brand will make it even easier to forget who we are at the Foundation. This is exactly what is to be prevented. The existing bias is already too big. * Not necessarily sure but it is inevitable because you say that is who we are.
When we are to do better in our mission, we should be subject driven not article driven. Thanks but no thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 18:17, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
From what I know:
- The global brand won't stop Wikidata being Wikidata.
- Wikimedia Russia won't necessarily become Wikipedia Russia
Seddon
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:56 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Think of Wikipedia Russia convincing Russian government that they are not really Wikipedia Russia. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 4:21 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more
problems than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with Wikipedia could create real life problems to affiliates. Let's think on making our product better, because is not a brand problem, is an obsolescence problem what we have.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:36 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030
goals
Hoi, The problem is that Wikipedia has an article bound interest. Our aim is
to
share in the sum of all knowledge and it is about subjects. In addition
to
this the approach and `the lessons learned` in effect are used as a template on how `other` Wikipedias are to function. This bias hinder,
even
prevent other possible approaches.
Using Wikipedia to define what Wikimedia does, enforces existing bias
and
hinders our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 11:25, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Elena,
If by "branding project" you mean replacing references to Wikimedia with Wikipedia, that is fine with me.
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:58 AM Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful
feedback
via
email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members
and
individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but
wanted
to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference
session
to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and
provide
feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using
your
closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the
link
on
the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as
possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community
review
on
Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how
the
world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted
to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and
evaluate
public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as
part
of
our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India,
China,
Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects
and
values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5]
and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower.
For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%,
Wikidata at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia.
Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed
a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also
made
a
strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from
Wikipedia
to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller
projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia
Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent
with
other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate
groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to
reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who
give
them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia
Foundation
is
collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to
speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary
of
community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research
[10],
and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working
with
us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page
[12] or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also
use
either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Community and Audience Engagement Associate* *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
Have I missed something, or this discussion is nowhere to be seen at any of the Village Pumps of the Portuguese Wikipedia? Also, is there any point in discussing this onwiki, as it was in Commons by part of the community[1], if apparently there is not any following by the people in charge of this process?
Why is this being planned to be presented before the BoT, without any meaningful discussion of such a dramatic change at the projects where it will have its impact?
Regards, Paulo
[1] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#WMF_...
Elena Lappen elappen@wikimedia.org escreveu no dia terça, 9/04/2019 à(s) 09:58:
Hi all,
Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback via email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and individual contributors.
I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but wanted to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide feedback.
When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on the talk page afterwards.
Thanks,
Elena
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
[2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
-- Elena Lappen Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
ensure
we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible.
::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
get
a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
commissioned
by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
- Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
America.
- Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and
is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata
at
20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
relationship
to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert
the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
with
more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
possible
before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10], and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12]
or
email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Seeing this "brand" discussion eat up all the limited available unpaid volunteer oxygen on wikimedia-l makes me sad.
If the WMF's biggest strategy topic this year is to enter into navel gazing about its brand, then the WMF looks like it has a problem with setting meaningful work for its senior management, or maybe just its team from Wolff Olins; anyone seen a budget line for this consultancy, I'm assuming this advice is not free, or cheap?
If volunteers want to chew over something that is more meaningful how about /transparency/, a target that by all practical measures has got visibly worse over the last five years and appears to have been deliberately dropped from every top level strategy document: * Should the WMF cap CEO personal expenses to under $1,000,000 a year, and publicly report on all individual senior management total expenses over $50,000 a year AND report on these within a year of the spend? * Should Wikimedia project volunteers be able to request and view the reports that the WMF holds about them, in the same way as is legally required under European law? * Should the WMF publish flight travel expenses, and set targets for decreasing year on year flight travel as part of actively doing anything at all to decrease the WMF's contribution to climate change?
Ps, it is worth looking at some of the links in the original email, it is revealing that WMF senior management appears to believe that it is a competitor with the commercial worlds of social media, YouTube and internet search engines. If this is how strategy and targets are created, then the "sum of human knowledge" goals are horribly watered down between ideology and delivery through the eyes of management consultants.
Thanks, Fae
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 03:14, Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and values.
The study revealed some interesting trends:
Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
fast growing.
- There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
- There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship to Wikipedia.
- In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
level of support for our mission.
Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The suggestions include:
Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
- Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
- Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
- Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
This is not a new idea.[7][8]
By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of community response.
We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10], and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or email brandproject@wikimedia.org with direct feedback. You can also use either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
- Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
[3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Commu...
[6] https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-pr...
[7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
[8] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_uni...
[9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_researc...
[10] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand...
[11] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_...
[12] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_re...
--
Zack McCune (he/him)
Senior Global Brand Manager
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:14 PM Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org wrote:
:: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
Hi all,
We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
Dear all, I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates (as opposed to the projects themselves)?
Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason too, I am skeptical.
regards, Phoebe (former WMF trustee)
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates (as opposed to the projects themselves)?
Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason too, I am skeptical.
regards, Phoebe (former WMF trustee)
This is the most persuasive perspective I've read so far, thank you Phoebe.
I also wonder why it makes sense to pursue a WMF rebranding project (which is expensive in terms of time, money, volunteer effort and in other ways) at the same time as the strategy process is questioning whether the WMF (or chapters, UGs, etc.) are the right vehicles for the movement goals. If the strategy process is honestly holding open the possibility that the WMF might not be the right organization to lead, then rebranding before the process is complete is a strange decision.
As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've been struggling to put into words myself. And like she, I would have been excited about this brand change several years ago. But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see the need for that opportunity then. I think that moment has passed. I'm not sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.
Best, Philippe (former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates (as opposed to the projects themselves)?
Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason too, I am skeptical.
regards, Phoebe (former WMF trustee) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I concur with Phoebe and Philippe as well. I find this branding proposal feels very dated; something that might have had currency several years ago, but not really an advantage in the coming 10-15 years. There aren't a lot of organizations that change their names to reflect their most prominent brand; if one looks at the most recent "big tech" renaming, we saw Google move to Alphabet, actually divorcing themselves from their keystone brand. I suspect that, had the foundation originally been named the "Wikipedia Foundation", we might very well be looking to change the name to something more generic (like "Wikimedia Foundation") today. Given the longterm strategic goal of being a broad and deep knowledge ecostructure, I think a more generic name serves the movement better.
Much as I very much appreciate the time, energy and other resources that have led to this proposal, there's not a lot of evidence of "value for money" in proceeding, especially as a lot of the costs would devolve down to affiliates that have much more pressing needs to meet with their limited financial resources. I won't enter into any discussion about whether certain of our projects should be left by the wayside, but I will note that there are significant variations in the "popularity" of various projects between language groups as well as cultural groups.
Risker/Anne
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:28, Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've been struggling to put into words myself. And like she, I would have been excited about this brand change several years ago. But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see the need for that opportunity then. I think that moment has passed. I'm not sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.
Best, Philippe (former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates
(as
opposed to the projects themselves)?
Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to
me
like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and
content
to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia.
(I
give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it.
So
I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure.
We're
not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide
world
of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason too, I am skeptical.
regards, Phoebe (former WMF trustee) _______________________________________________ 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