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:-
1) Wikipedia
2) Wikimedia
3) Mediawiki
Gordo
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
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
Wikimedia serves as an umbrella term for the entire movement, and since our scope is wider than just Wikipedia, it's an appropriate name, despite it not having the same 'brand' recognition as the movement's flagship project.
Harry
________________________________ From: Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2012, 10:09 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] What is in a name?
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
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
despite it not having the same 'brand' recognition as the movement's flagship project.
SOFIXIT :P
No seriously, that's probably the answer, longterm.
-- Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Harry Burt harryaburt@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
despite it not having the same 'brand' recognition as the movement's flagship project.
Its a feature, not a bug.
We promote our content more than we promote ourselves.
SOFIXIT :P
No seriously, that's probably the answer, longterm.
IMO it is good that our organisation brand is not 'Wikipedia'. I usually tell people that Wikipedia is our first and most famous project, and we are the quiet workers behind the projects. And we have been building more projects, and they are going to be just as good and popular as Wikipedia.
On 13/06/12 09:44, Gordon Joly wrote:
Compare and contrast:-
Wikipedia
Wikimedia
Mediawiki
OOPS. Forgot Wikileaks.
:-)
Gordo
On 13 June 2012 09:44, 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".
Various pages on the wiki will need to be changed; for example the chapter's expenses policy.
Don't worry: We'll be doing that shortly, once Companies House have everything updated at their end.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 13 June 2012 12:05, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 13 June 2012 09:44, 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".
Various pages on the wiki will need to be changed; for example the chapter's expenses policy.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 13 June 2012 09:44, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
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?
'Cos Wikinews and Wiktionary and Wikiquote and Wikibooks and so on exist too!
And, of course, Commons. Provider of high quality educational materials and/or nude works including Muppets. ;-)
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org