Indeed - it's standard practice nowadays to be 'Wikimedia' rather than 'Wikipedia'. If only someone had made this argument when people were coming up with names right at the start of the projects...
(The bigger issue here is why 'Wikimedia Commons' rather than 'Wikipedia Multimedia', etc...)
Thanks, Mike
On 13 Jun 2012, at 09:57, John Vandenberg wrote:
All chapters are called either 'Wikimedia', 'Wiki' or 'free culture'.
On 6/13/12, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
At last, the company (a registered charity) is now called "Wikimedia UK". The name was changed from "Wiki UK Ltd". A former version of the project was called "Wiki Educational Resources Ltd" which is a rather apt name given the current interest in training. This company was dissolved in 2009. It does not appear to have ever submitted any accounts.
Company No. 05708269 Status: Dissolved 31/03/2009 Date of Incorporation: 14/02/2006
Why choose the name "wikimedia" when the public are in general much more familiar with the term "wikipedia"? Are we guilty of being to close the issue and not seeing the wider picture (but that was was given as the reason for the formal name change at the AGM???)? Is there now time to reflect?
I know something of the trademark issues, and I know something about the relationship to the Foundation.
Compare and contrast:-
Wikipedia
Wikimedia
Mediawiki
Gordo
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org