[Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

[Johannes Rohr]

"Erik Moeller" <erik at wikimedia.org> writes:

> On 5/8/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Besides everything else which has been said already, I do not find
>> these names particularly appealing. "Wikibooks" is short and catchy,
>> "Wikipedia Textbooks" is long and clumsy and has a taste of
>> ugly marketspeak.
>
> Wikibooks is actually one of our most problematic names, as the focus
> is very much on textbook development. Short and catchy as it ma ybe,
> it is misleading. Fundamentally, I can see problems with the project's
> conception around a very specific type of knowledge representation (be
> it generally a book or specifically a textbook), but if that is how we
> define it, then we should at least be clear what _kind_ of books we
> are talking about.

Apart from having difficulties understanding this critique, it is
surprising, how in this case you get picky about naming, when on the
other hand rebranding many different projects to _pedia, which clearly
are not encyclopaediae is just fine for you.

>> Apart from that, one should be clear about the fact, that the success
>> of Wikipedia is primarily rooted in that it meets a specific
>> demand. There is a strong demand for a free encyclopaedia much more
>> than for a free news portal, simply because gazillions of news sites
>> exist on the Web.
>
> Absolutely. And that only strengthens its role as a flagship in the
> coming years.

... which means that rebranding will almost certainly not make a big
difference. There are many news outlets everywhere, with blogs more
and more advancing to a top position. The relatively low
attractiveness of Wikinews (here I'm speaking mainly about the German
edition) is rooted in what it offers (to both readers and writers),
not in how it is called. BTW: When I read "Wikipedia News", my
association is "News /about/ Wikipedia", rather than a news portal
operated by Wikipedia. Am I the only one?

Thanks,

Johannes

-- 
http://www.infoe.de/