[Foundation-l] Rethinking brands

[hillgentleman]

On 15/05/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 5/15/07, hillgentleman <hillgentleman.wikiversity at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Calling Wikiversity "Wikipedia Learning" is not uncomfortable.  It is
> > wrong.  It misrepresents what Wikiversity is, as if to say,
> > Wikiversity is a subcatgegory of wikipedia whose purpose is to study
> > what wikipedia has.
>
> That depends on how you parse it, and there is a strong argument to be
> made that the general public will parse it differently from our core
> community. The kind of literal and semantic arguments found in this
> thread are unlikely to be made by people who identify "Wikipedia" with
> a broad notion of a source of knowledge, an online community, and an
> organization or company.
>
> Moreover, one could hardly argue that the name "Wikiversity" is
> self-explanatory. It is not a university, it does not award degrees,
> etc. People understand it by visiting the website and looking at the
> materials there. I believe the name "Wikipedia Learning" is much more
> explanatory, and any initial misunderstanding (which any name can
> cause) will disappear as soon as people actually look at the contents.
>
Sure, it is not a university.  It is not called wikiuniversity.  The
word :"Wikiversity" has many connotations.  It may mean "university" -
in the modern sense, or, better, in the original sense, (a community
of scholars), it may also mean "diversity".  It is not fixed.   Let
the everybody decide for herself.  However, wikiversity is certainly
not a community of learners amongst wikipedians.

> > In practice, it also fails to stand out amongst the numerous
> > education/academic oriented sites, for example:
> >
> > http://education.wikia.com/wiki/Wikiversity
> > http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
> > http://www.wikieducator.org/Main_Page
> > http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/Wikiversity
> > http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome
> > http://www.qedoc.org/en/index.php?title=Main_Page
>
> Excuse me? You would seriously argue that "Wikipedia XY" does not
> stand out among those names? "Wikipedia" is the only name we have that
> has global recognition, orders of magnitude more so than any of the
> above. Wikiversity, on the other hand, is on equal footing with all of
> them.
>

Once again, Eric, you are only think about the present.  I am talking
about the intrinsic merit of the name Wikiversity.



> > A name is crucial and intrinsic to anything, anybody, anyone.   To
> > suggest changing the name for the sheer convenience in marketing in
> > the short term, is to get the priorities wrong.
>

> That's a straw man argument; the lines of reasoning (including the
> e-mail you responded to, most of which you ignored) are more complex
> than "sheer convenience in marketing".

The principal purpose of this proposal is to help marketing in the
short term.  The hypothetical administrative conveniences are side
gains.   If you say, "We are short of manpower and funds and we must
change or else we won't make it." , Then fine. Do it.  However,  the
situation is not that critical.

You are suggesting a long term change as a remedy to short term pains.

> Nor are you proposing any
> realistic solutions to the problem Claus pointed out.

Which problem? On "internationalisation"?  I have not heard of a
complaint from any language that says "we cannot translate the word
'wikinews' into our language.".  Please provide some examples.

: )
H.