Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com a scris:
Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the usual atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the community,
no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it is to explain that difference?
This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
no assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the consultation.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
Strainu
You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key stakeholder group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to your stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from key community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate - I believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with this
fit
of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
It's one after another, and never stops.
Best, Paulo
Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
à(s)
18:25:
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
Something along the lines of: "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia" and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF. Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether
"There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded bias, especially considering the already banked investment in consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the spent money had impact and "value".
P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration"
when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history and gives the impression that you are quoting views from
collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville <
dranville-ctr@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pine. There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding proposition. I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except
that
it
is
difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but
it
is
sometimes necessary). Have other options even been considered?
-speaking in my own name here-
Diane
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Zack,
Thank you for the report on Meta.
I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
considerable
support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve
our
movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit
is
that,
according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable
opposition
to
the rebranding proposal.
Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
"considerable
support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears
to
be
considerable opposition?
Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays
that
measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding
the
rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two
of
the
three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using
those
measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition
regarding
the
RfC,
I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as
declined.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune zmccune@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
process for
> movement branding. Please join the in-depth discussion group,
or
watch
for > updates on Meta-Wiki. > > > Hello all, > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
affiliates,
> several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I
am
pleased
> to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
brand
strategy > [1]. > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
contributors and
> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback: > > 1. > > Reducing confusion > 2. > > Protecting reputation > 3. > > Supporting sister projects > 4. > > Addressing (legal, governmental) risks > 5. > > Supporting movement growth > 6. > > The process of change > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
will
see
> examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
indication
of > how many of the comments that we received were related to each
theme.
> > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
across
our
wide > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
(and a
sign of
> health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
“polarity
maps”
> which are used to help visualize how different arguments
coexist
in
tension > with each other. > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
thoughtful
and
> useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
branding
> successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
assessing
> branding systems. > > == Thanks == > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
Education
> Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
discussions
during > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
Lappen,
> Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive
parts
of
this
> consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of
affiliates
> commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering
your
> perspectives and insights. > > > == Next steps and staying involved == > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and
general
appetite
> to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe
that
> critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for
precisely
what > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have
shared
these
> insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of
Trustees,
who
> approved continuing these efforts. > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on
formal
brand
> naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use “Wikipedia” > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be
OPT-IN
for
> affiliates. > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a
group
of
> volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during
this
> consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we
invite
you > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to
host
this
> discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid
discussions
and
> room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do
not
want
to > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be
happening
> within the brand network group, we will still be tracking
comments
left
on > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important
ideas
and
> updates originating from the brand network discussion will be
shared
> publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki. > > The development of this proposed identity system will take
approximately
6 > months. As stated, regular updates will be shared to mailing
lists,
> Wikimedia Space, and Meta-Wiki [4]. Please engage us where you
are
most
> comfortable! Once complete, community groups will have the
power
to
decide > if/when they opt in to using the new system. > > Yours, > > Zack > > [1] > >
with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> > > [2] > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/results
> > > [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/g/brand-network and
click
the
gray
> "Request" button. When your request is approved, you will be
able
to
see
> and access the brand network discussion category on the Discuss
Space
main > page. > > [4] > >
brands/2030_research_and_planning
> > > -- > > Zack McCune (he/him) > > Director of Brand > > Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe