[Foundation-l] Wikimedia brand survey open

[Anthony]

On 6/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >On 5/31/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/31/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Has it been decided whether or not the individual projects have any say
> in
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>determining their own names, or whether the foundation will impose a
> name
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>upon them from the top down, or is this still up for debate?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It is not decided that anything will change at all, and if it will,
> >>the parameters of that change are very much up to debate. This survey
> >>is an informal project I have initiated to collect some data for
> >>further discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >It is worth considering, when it comes to majority decisions on such
> >
> >
> >>matter, that a group can be its own worst enemy:
> >>http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
> >>
> >>
> >Right, and it was precisely that essay that I had in mind when saying
> this.
> >To give an example, I would suggest that Wikipedians (who aren't involved
> in
> >Wikinews) shouldn't be involved in a discussion as to whether or not to
> >change the name of Wikinews, because they are not at all part of the core
> >group of the Wikinews project.
> >
> That sounds like an effective divide and conquer strategy.  A person who
> is determined to effect these changes would likely have an easier time
> doing it that way than by trying to develop a consensus across all the
> projects at once.


I was thinking it'd be just the opposite.  If you have a consensus across
each project individually, then you automatically have a consensus across
all projects as a whole.  The reverse, however, is not true.

I very much support the operational autonomy of projects, but this is
> not an operational matter; it's a question of identity.


Well, I certainly think a project's members should have a say in their
identity.  Not that they should be the sole determiner of that, mind you,
but a change from above which doesn't have the support of the project's core
members is bound to fail anyway.

To draw a
> parallel with the United States, would it be acceptable if State X
> insisted on calling itself the "Confederate State of X"?  Even an
> overwhelming popular vote in the state for that would not find
> acceptance in a wider community.


No, it wouldn't be acceptable.  IMO change should only come with the consent
of *both* the core members of the project *and* the core members of the
foundation as a whole.

Anthony