Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM...

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen...

James Heilman

14 Jul 2011 14 Jul '11

11:17 a.m.

This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long time. Having people add "Part of the Wikimedia Movement" would benefit both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever it is found. Allowing our GLAM partners to use this wording and those who are actively collaborating with us would be a start. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Show replies by date

Alec Conroy

14 Jul 14 Jul

11:49 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks for the kind words. And the only thing that's stopping us from having that many sites in the movement is Trademark Law / Branding . The idea works and requires no resources, just a small campaign of communication offering up the possibility. But, if 1) we like the idea of "Part of the $x Movement" and 2) we don't want to use "Wikimedia" in the movement name, Then: We should _really_ ask the foundation professionals to use their non-profit magic to find the right name. Experts have gotten quite good at picking brand names, and our foundations' experts are quite... expert. These people put together fundraising campaigns with ever-increasingly head-explodingly-successful results. They have conducted journal-grade scientific investigations into our readership and our editor populations, diagnosing problem areas with pinpoint accuracy before the problems develop into diseases. If somebody's going to evaluate brand names based on their appeal to the wider population, I vote they be the ones to do it. :) Alec

Thomas Morton

12:18 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Thanks for the kind words. And the only thing that's stopping us from

...

having that many sites in the movement is Trademark Law / Branding . The idea works and requires no resources, just a small campaign of communication offering up the possibility.

Not so much that; but protecting Wikimedia brandmark is *really* important because otherwise it will get misused. I dislike the idea of making it ultra-accessible for basically anyone to stick "Part of the Wikimedia Movement" on their website - it serves little purpose (per se) and you are going to get the vast majority of people slapping it on as a neat badge (or to take advantage of the brand) without actually subscribing or forwarding our aims. Wikimedia has broad aims, but a reasonably narrow focus, and that makes the movement hard for some to digest. I don't think any direct affiliation should be as simple as making use of a badge - there is nothing wrong with being a little selective, and there are many benefits. The way that other bodies do this is to set up an alternate brand name, as you are suggesting, and this is the way we should go. The boy should have a snappy and clear brand name, with the same clear message. It initially should be formed within the WMF eco-system with a comittee drawn from the various aspects of the Foundation. There should be a lightweight way of signing up to the movement, with various levels. So it could start with the free-for all option of a little badge saying: * "We support X movement, free content etc." Then the next step should require a simple vetting process to make sure they meet the aims/goals of the movement. That allows them the "Part of" badge. Finally, for the larger and significant projects there should be some form of "top level" affiliation or partnership that allows them access to the committee and organisational structure. I think people would find this more digestible. Advantages: * Allows us to develop a new brand name with a clearer message * Means the WMF isn't left "responsible" for the members/supporters of the movement (as the WMF would simply be a member of the movement) * It takes it away from the Foundation a little, which may be more palatable to others and encourage them to sign up The people to learn from here is the free software movement - Apache and GNU have gone through all of these stages and have some ideas we can use. Tom

Alec Conroy

12:52 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

I dislike the idea of making it ultra-accessible for basically anyone to stick "Part of the Wikimedia Movement" on their website - it serves little purpose (per se) and you are going to get the vast majority of people slapping it on as a neat badge (or to take advantage of the brand) without actually subscribing or forwarding our aims. Wikimedia has broad aims, but a reasonably narrow focus, and that makes the movement hard for some to digest.

<snip> Yes to everything about this email, I should absolutely clarify that when I have been using the phrase "Part of the Wikimedia Movement", that is entirely so people will say "Hey, we shouldn't use that name in that way!". I concur wholeheartedly. Such use would be a major brand experimentation for no good reason. I just say "Wikimedia Movement" because that's the name I have in my head that explains the concept to this audience-- but actual name MUST change before it's put in use by third-party-projects. Alternate brand with gradual membership, as you suggest, is the clear winner. As for the name-- this looks like a job for.... experts. Alec

Thomas Morton

1:06 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right.

...

As for the name-- this looks like a job for.... experts.

effe iets anders

5:56 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will forgive me if I ignore most. I do want to stress a few things. There is a difference between the Free Content Movement, the Group of People who Use Wiki's and the Wikimedia Movement. Within the Free Content Movement, which is indeed very old, Wikimedia is a leader. The Wikimedia movement is much more narrow. I would love to see some ideas to define the free content movement a bit better - I guess that is more or less what you were working to. I would not like us to confuse people even further by mixing up names (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki), so lets make that Wiki- and media-neutral. I think there are already works in that direction (I think something like Free Culture Defined), and it would probably make most sense to work in that direction - with them, dont re-invent the wheel. When it comes to Wiki's being used for good goals, I don't see Wiki's as special, sorry. Wiki's are a tool, not determining anything. I would be totally fine if Wikiversity would decide next month to start using Moodle instead of MediaWiki, and still be Wikimedia project. Maybe collaborative authoring is a shared thing, but not even that is something that is the same everywhere in Wikimedia, let alone in Free Culture/Content. I don't see much use for defining a movement along that criterium. Then finally, there is the very important question of how to stimulate innovation. I have been bothered by this as well the past few years, and I have as well been wondering why we are so extremely conservative. Why dont we like new and fresh ideas, why do we want to keep everything the same? Not only with software improvements, but also with new projects. Yes, I do agree here and I would love to see the incubator expand in a way - and also allow totally new content types to experiment. There is one disadvantage though: companies have developed around that already (like Wikia) and we don't currently have the infrastructure and support they can offer to new projects. We dont have the staff to help new communities form. Maybe we should, maybe we should leave it with those commercial parties. In any case the current way is bad for our movement in the long term. And I mean our movement in the narrow sense of the word. Best regards, Lodewijk Am 14. Juli 2011 19:06:47 UTC+2 schrieb Thomas Morton < morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>gt;:

...

Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right.

As for the name-- this looks like a job for.... experts.

Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for the most effective solution. We could at least brainstorm some ideas? Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Nathan

6:33 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

I can envision something like an Open Knowledge Project or some other umbrella initiative, aimed at forging links between like-minded organizations who wish to associate without losing independence or explicitly taking responsibility for the work of others. It could be set up pretty simply: * Establish the fundamentals of a broader identity with a statement of shared values and a general intent to cooperate in the world * Host a portal to communicate broadly common goals and and provide information to both prospective colleagues and the general public * Arrange formal and informal opportunities to create collaborative ties between people and organizations and to develop a sense of shared purpose If you could get to that point growth would be pretty organic; participants would suggest mutually agreeable and beneficial goals and initiatives to be undertaken as a group, such undertakings would drive closer cooperation and legitimate the concept of a free content / open knowledge movement, and so on. Organizations like PLoS, FSF, Creative Commons, the EFF, Wikimedia and others have naturally overlapping interests and philosophies. It would only make sense for those organizations, and the many smaller ones who share their broad values, to cooperate as a group in a more formal way than I believe they do currently.

James Forrester

15 Jul 15 Jul

4:11 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On 14 July 2011 23:33, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think this is a good idea (and better than trying to get all Free Content/Open Knowledge/etc. people to badge themselves as somehow part of our Wikimedia Movement, which though (hopefully!) welcoming and inclusive is not as wide as the whole topic. I'd note that there is of course the excellent Open Knowledge Definition[0], penned in part by our very own Erik Möller, which gave rise to the Open Knowledge Foundation[1]. Perhaps working with them on this might be a good move? [0] - opendefinition.org [1] - okfn.org J. -- James D. Forrester jdforrester(a)wikimedia.org | jdforrester(a)gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Nathan

8:54 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

...

I knew there had to be something like that already. It seems like it would be difficult to adapt an existing organization to the role of a coalition, although if they were willing I think there is certainly room for it and abundant opportunity.

Alec Conroy

14 Jul 14 Jul

8:03 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:56 PM, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will forgive me if I ignore most.

I'm so happy anyone found it worth reading! It's quite tome-ish .

...

I do want to stress a few things. There is a difference between the Free Content Movement, the Group of People who Use Wiki's and the Wikimedia Movement.

Right. "The Unnamed Movement", which I earlier sometimes called the Wikimedia Movement, is definitely not the group of people who use wikis. Included, however, are the entire wikimedia movement. The scope of this Unnamed Movement is unclear, but it would definitely have to be at least as wide so as to include "all the projects we wish we could say were ours". A wider circle, "projects that say in good faith they share our values", is also part of this Unnamed movement. That's the narrowest conceivable definition of the Unnamed movement. If we want, the Unnamed movement could be very wide in scope, including anyone connected to free information-- from free software foundation to eff to american library association, and any smaller projects that lie in between those groups and us. That would be a very expansive vision of the Unnamed movment.

...

I would not like us to confuse people even further by mixing up names (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki), so lets make that Wiki- and media- neutral.

Agree and agree. Wiki- and Media- would be to express a connection to the existing core-WM movement. If we can find a name that still evokes a connection to our core, without using the words Wiki or Media, that would be a definite plus.

...

I think there are already works in that direction (I think something like Free Culture Defined), and it would probably make most sense to work in that direction - with them, dont re-invent the wheel.

Here's why we re-invent the wheel. From my vantage point, it looks like we're at the epicenter of this Unnamed movement. IF we us a pre-existing 'wheel' (brand), then we forfeit the opportunity to invent a wheel (brand) in which we are explicitly the central hub. Right now, our status as the de facto central hub is, in fact, one of our greatest assets. If we pick a name that doesn't clearly promote Wikimedia , e.g. "Free Culture Movement", then the resulting movement won't promote Wikimedia every time its name is used. We want a 'spin off' brand, something that evokes Wikimedia without being Wikimedia.

...

When it comes to Wiki's being used for good goals, I don't see Wiki's as special, sorry. Wiki's are a tool, not determining anything.

Agreed. They're a very very special tool, but software not a reasonable definition for a movement. The Unnamed Movement should be software-neutral, if not in name then CERTAINLY in practice. I just mentioned only the Mediawikis because we currently host only mediawikis, and I didn't want anyones head to explode if I proposed too much change in one email . But yes, we would also have absolutely no reason to exclude non-wikis from the Unnamed movement. I'm really happy to see someone else stressing that-- it's something worth stressing. Alec

David Gerard

15 Jul 15 Jul

3:33 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On 15 July 2011 01:03, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Agreed. They're a very very special tool, but software not a reasonable definition for a movement. The Unnamed Movement should be software-neutral, if not in name then CERTAINLY in practice.

It's a thing and it exists and it's a concept that needs a name. I tend to call it "the free culture" in my head (which has the annoyance that "free" is ambiguous in English). e.g. discussing how particular people think, "X is a free culture native. Y isn't, but is slowly getting the idea." (The only reason this needs a separate name is Creative Commons pushing and continuing to push -NC and -ND. I and we continue to love CC, but what they do is *not quite* what we do.) - d.

Alec Conroy

14 Jul 14 Jul

7:43 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

As for the name-- this looks like a job for.... experts.

Absolutely! If we do this, the very first step should be a widespread call to brainstorm names. Truth be told, I think I actually could generate a list of a hundred or more 'sane' options-- it's something I've thinking about for a long time. But, actually brainstorming that list is a big upfront time-investment for potentially zero payoff. Until we have some idea that this kind of outreach and project-reclamation movement is something want to do, it's hard to focus on names when the dialog is still digesting the need. We somebody important enough decided this deserves objective 'brand evaluation' support, then we'll know the idea is worth brainstorming. Right now, I can come up with lots of names, but they're all names that appeal to me. And since I'm already part of Wikimedia, I'll be in the Unnamed movement no matter what it's named, so I'm not really in the target audience. The people a name matters to are not the insiders-- we're already sold. We pick the name for the rest of the world... Our name is how we present ourselves to the world. And we want a name that turns strangers into readers and readers into editors. Simultaneously, we want a name that will also to EVERYONE into donors, and our fundraising team seems like they are very, very tied in to the donor population what appeals to it. If we go with an informative name or a WM-related name it might not matter, but if we go with a 'evocative' or 'inspirational' name, we need to make sure it inspires OTHERS, not just us. :) Alec

4668

days inactive

4669

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

11 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Alec Conroy
David Gerard
effe iets anders
James Forrester
James Heilman
Nathan
Thomas Morton