[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Brand Survey Analysis

[Anthony]

On 7/5/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Anthony wrote:
> > So, the assertion is that it's OK to get something for Wikipedia, and
> > then use it for another project, because people who contribute to that
> > other project think they're contributing to Wikipedia anyway, and
> > because people who contribute to Wikipedia are unaware of the other
> > projects?
>
> That might make sense if we were to pretend that there's some kind of
> magic wall between
> "some-project-that-is-just-an-encyclopedia-and-nothing-else-ever" and
> "everything-else-that-we-do".
>
> However, I don't think that wall really exists.
>
Well, I don't believe in magic, but I do think there are significant
walls between the various projects.  Different sets of users,
different admins, different rules, different domain names.  About the
only thing the same is the software.

> When people in general talk about what "Wikipedia" does or what they
> want "Wikipedia" to do or how they want to support "Wikipedia", they're
> nearly always referring to what we, the super-elite involved people,
> would call "Wikimedia".
>
I don't know about the "we" part.  I personally try to avoid calling
*anything* "Wikimedia".  I do use the term "the WMF", but I use that
to refer to the corporation, basically to the board and the employees.

> To the rest of the world, Wikimedia *is* "Wikipedia" -- Commons,
> Wikinews, Wiktionary, etc are other things that "Wikipedia" does. There
> are still other things that many people would like "Wikipedia" to do in
> addition to those existing projects. People would like to see even more
> work done by "Wikipedia", not less.
>
> This isn't because people don't know about other projects -- it's
> because the "Wikipedia" name is so well-known and well-entrenched
> already that when they do hear about them, "Wikipedia" is the name
> they're going to be able to remember to attach them to.
>
I don't see how you can discount the fact that the name is so
well-known and well-entrenched because the website, Wikipedia, is so
popular.  And I also think you overestimate the extent to which people
know about the other projects.

> Whether that's what we _want_ or not, this is very much my experience to
> date, and it seems foolish to me to pretend that it isn't so. The
> "Wikipedia" name is much, much more valuable in both public and private
> communications than the "Wikimedia" name because of its established
> reputation and recognition.
>
I think it's equally foolish to pretend that the people who think that
Wikipedia = Wikimedia are correct.  Wikipedia is a much more valuable
name than Wikimedia because Wikipedia is a much bigger success than
Wikimedia.