Send email. Thank you.
Pada tanggal Min, 15 Mar 2020 19.01, <
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> menulis:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? (Aron Demian)
2. Re: Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? (Gerard Meijssen)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Aron Demian <aronmanning5(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 11:24:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of
the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've
experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or
culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is
strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative
benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive,
unfortunately.
Aron
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
wrote:
It is grossly unrealistic to blame English
Wikipedia and its editing
community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
Wikipedias.
En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
editorial standards, which are those developed by
en:WP, and for en:WP.
Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content,
within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to
emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that
they
should follow that example, you are free to
produce documentary evidence
from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
communities of those projects for consideration.
If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
community who have no authority over Commons.
As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
Hoi,
By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost
universally
but particularly people who buy into English
Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project
of
a father who wants his children to have access to
knowledge in their
maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
other languages is frustrated from within WMF. We could do a better
job, a
job that will work for any language but it is
actively discouraged. The
result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
wrote:
> Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about
300
> projects and make several good points about
how people confuse
Wikipedia
with
English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
be
highly toxic". Are you referring to all 300
odd projects, or are you
using
> the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as
a
> unifying brand. The problem is that
Wikipedia on its own is 300
projects
and that
for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
English Wikipedia.
* Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for
projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get
research published
* New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia,
the
notion of the "other languages" is
often not considered in the
architecture
* It is assumed that functionality works for
projects other than
Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
* In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English
notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that
were explicitly
requested
for use with Wikidata
* there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products.
Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We
do not serve a purpose
because we do not seek an audience for them
* even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is
really
> good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other
languages.
>
> It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may
be
that for
external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to
share
in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in
English and it is not
what English Wikipedia deems notable.
Thanks,
GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 11:46:33 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
Hoi,
Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the
shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an
English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider
how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and
sharing in the sum of all knowledge.
There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented
and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers.
Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by
bot.
When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I
stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was
more relevant that an international perspective.
At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated
earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of
the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something
about it. Well, I have been blogging about Wikimedia for the last 15 years
[1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to
make people see what is in front of them.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
wrote:
It is grossly unrealistic to blame English
Wikipedia and its editing
community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply
with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for
en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for
content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they
choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that
they
should follow that example, you are free to
produce documentary evidence
from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
communities of those projects for consideration.
If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
community who have no authority over Commons.
As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
Hoi,
By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost
universally
but particularly people who buy into English
Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project
of
a father who wants his children to have access to
knowledge in their
maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
other languages is frustrated from within WMF. We could do a better
job, a
job that will work for any language but it is
actively discouraged. The
result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
wrote:
> Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about
300
> projects and make several good points about
how people confuse
Wikipedia
with
English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
be
highly toxic". Are you referring to all 300
odd projects, or are you
using
> the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as
a
> unifying brand. The problem is that
Wikipedia on its own is 300
projects
and that
for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
English Wikipedia.
* Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for
projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get
research published
* New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia,
the
notion of the "other languages" is
often not considered in the
architecture
* It is assumed that functionality works for
projects other than
Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
* In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English
notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that
were explicitly
requested
for use with Wikidata
* there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products.
Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We
do not serve a purpose
because we do not seek an audience for them
* even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is
really
> good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other
languages.
>
> It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may
be
that for
external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to
share
> in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not
> what English Wikipedia deems notable.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar <ezar(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> > project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few
of
>
these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this
group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing
with
> the members of the brand network (which
people can still join )[2]
ideas
> around an evolved brand system with
"Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner
with
> > Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for
working
on
> > complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> > Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New
York
>
City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed
naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in
April, and a proposed design
for
> > movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will
be a
new
branding system that will be opt-in for
affiliates.
In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these
proposals,
Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many
points at which it has
already
been given, and has created a process with
built-in community
involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online
with
> 97
> > volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> > foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> > workshops, community participants were asked to break into small
groups
> to
> > answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> > developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are
as a
>
movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came
out
of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the
one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia
movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual
concepts
> > built or selected by workshop participants.
> >
> > Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
> >
> >
https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
> >
> > Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the
> project
> > talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also
be
> > available on Meta starting next month.
> >
> > Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one
single
>
concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around
naming
> > (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They
are
scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17
March, but can
continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in
Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of
the
https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-y…
Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various
points
> in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas
of
> > the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe
that
we
> > don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human
> being
> > to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means
billions
of
> people. There are many people and cultures
we still need to reach and
> include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals
the
> > movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us
> > there.
> >
> > Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at
> and
> > the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the
project
> > talk page, or by joining the Brand
Network [2]. Also feel free to
drop
us a
note at brandproject(a)wikimedia.org if you have
questions.
Thanks!
Essie Zar
(from the movement brand identity project team)
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
> >
> > * What is a concept?
> > A tool making the complex more understandable.
> >
> > Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to
> > consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular
> > definition in its context. By creating concepts we allow ourselves to
> > acknowledge the complexity yet dare to step away from differences and
> look
> > for similarities that binds it all together.
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Essie Zar* (she/her)
> > Brand Manager
> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
,
<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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>