[Foundation-l] what is partnership ?

[Neil Harris]

Christopher Mahan wrote:

>--- Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>  
>
>>I agree: there can be many partners, and there's no reason not to
>>be 
>>partners with many people and organizations. But with the Wikipedia
>>
>>brand becoming more and more valuable, and official trademark 
>>recognition in the offing, there needs to be an official process
>>for 
>>registration of Wikipedia/Wikimedia partners. In particular, I
>>believe 
>>that the Foundation will have a legal requirement to defend its 
>>trademarks Real Soon Now, and not doing so risks losing the rights
>>over 
>>that trademark and becoming a [[genericized trademark]].
>>    
>>
>
>Any value the wikipedia brand has comes from the content of the
>wikipedia. The content itself does not "belong" to the Wikimedia
>Foundation. The brand, well, I could not care less. Be careful that
>you recognize value where it really is.
>
>  
>
The content belongs to its original copyright owners, and increasingly, 
the Wikimedia Foundation is their official copyright agent. The 
community is deeply tied up with the Wikipedia name and reputation; if 
there's no community,  there will be no encyclopedia. The name (and 
logo) are a banner for everyone to unite around.

Trust me, the brand is worth a great deal, in both moral and monetary 
terms: people want to contribute to "the" Wikipedia, not a fork, for 
example, and donors want to fund the "real" Wikipedia project, not one 
of the hundreds of knockoffs. The brand symbolically holds the community 
and initiative together, and symbols have great power. Even the 
strongest Free Software advocates like Richard Stallman and Linus 
Torvalds jealously protect the GNU and Linux brands; and for good reason.

If things were to fall apart, the community _could_ realign around a 
different organization, with a different name: consider x.org vs. 
xfree86 -- however, that would be an option of last resort, after some 
assumed failure of the current Wikimedia initiative, which is what the 
Foundation exists to prevent. Hence the important of good branding and 
trademark policies.

>>The Foundation urgently needs an official policy before anything 
>>damaging occurs to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia brand. An official
>>partner 
>>list page would be a good idea: so the Foundation can say "if
>>you're not 
>>on this page, you're not an official partner, and here's how to
>>apply to 
>>be a Wikimedia partner, dear Bill/Melinda [delete as applicable]"
>>    
>>
>
>Do we? Is it so important that we "recognize" our "partners"?
>
>  
>
Yes it is. Partnership implies two-way consent. On the other hand, the 
GFDL makes all the content available to anyone, without any need for 
recognition or permission save that explicitly given in the GFDL. And 
letting self-designated "partners" use the trademarks without explicit 
permission leads down the slippery path to genericization, which has the 
potential to severely damage the project.

>I say the opposite is true. We should have a policy that says: "It
>does not matter how much money, content, or goodwill you send our
>way, we are not putting your logo or anything else in the wikipedia.
>Our NPOV policy would prohibit that, now that I think about it.
>  
>
>It would be kind of like saying "This unbiased beverage report
>brought to you by our Partner: Pepsi"
>
>Chris Mahan
>  
>
I agree with you on this. Partner recognition should be kept well clear 
of the content. Which is why I recommend having partnership info on the 
Wikimedia Foundation site, not in the project content.

-- Neil