I think it's a fine idea. I know that nobody knows what "Wikimedia means", and see value to moving at least the Foundation's name towards a more recognizable brand.
I also see valid points being raised from the community, such as the distinction between Wikipedia and WikiBooks, -Versity, -Source, etc. Those projects are often very different from Wikipedia, and further work should be done to understand the impacts on brand perception if those very different projects use a more similar name. But overall, I think the idea is good.
What is bad is that this is another top-down change being apparently made entirely by WMF staff. The question is "how should we implement this idea that we have already come up with, and will implement anyway"? The question should have been brought forward much earlier in the form of "how can we improve our brand awareness". This idea could have been put forward and refined as part of that collaborative process. Or at least that's how it should have been done if the WMF cares about being a service organization.
I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
No need to mock me based on my apparent position on the issue. And I really don't see how it is desirable that the Foundation is willing to push ideas through without community support. Again, are they a top-down governance organization, or a service organization aimed at supporting and empowering the editing community and readership?
Adrian Raddatz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:05 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think a rebranding to Wikipedia is the best branding option but, at the same time, I aknowledge that this can cause a wide variety of problems to so many people inside our community that doing it without a plan to give safety (not only legal, as their lives could be compromised) is a bigger danger than the benefits it causes.
2019 ira. 6 10:41 PM erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com>):
We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between them.
In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I do think this rebranding is important.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu <strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
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
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