[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Brand Survey Analysis

[Delphine Ménard]

On 7/5/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Whether that's what we _want_ or not, this is very much my experience to
> date, and it seems foolish to me to pretend that it isn't so. The
> "Wikipedia" name is much, much more valuable in both public and private
> communications than the "Wikimedia" name because of its established
> reputation and recognition.

Value of a brand and practicality are two different things.

Should we rename Mediawiki as "the Wikipedia Software" (tm)?

We've been trying for how many years to make sure that the Wikimedia
Foundation was not mistaken for the "publisher" of Wikipedia, because
that would make our lives a hell of a lot more complicated.
Although I agree that calling ourselves Wikimedia probably wasn't the
best move ever (still too close), I still think that changing the name
of the organisation to the name of its most successful product is
simply a wrong choice.

See Phoebe's examples, there are hundreds of others. Of course, there
are other, counter examples. The Coca-Cola company, but that's
historical. If the organisation was to be called the Wikipedia
Foundation, it should have done so 5 years ago. Not now.

I believe that the organisation does not need to be called Wikipedia
something or other to be "successful". You pointed it out, suffice to
say "the organisation behind Wikipedia" and doors open. What more will
a name change bring?

/me tries to imagine
"Wikipedia Foundation, ah, the organisation that writes Wikipedia?"...

Delphine
-- 
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.