[Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

[Christophe Henner]

Well because Wikinews is not an encycloPEDIA of news, for example. And
Wikisource and Wikimedia commons are becoming more and more known, let
them the time to be known.

Wikipedia blabla, would be much more confusing for other users than
the name we already have. Moreover, using Wikipedia blabla will let
people think the blabla project is a sub project of wikipedia, which
it's not.

On 08/05/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Currently, many
> > projects are trying (and not rarely succeeding) to get their own
> > identity, with their own plans and functions. By renaming them to
> > "Wikipedia something", we would be telling them that that is not the
> > way we want to go.
>
> I understand the emotional reasons for projects to have their "own
> identity," rather than being directly associated with Wikipedia
> through their name. What are the rational ones?
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
schiste