[Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Essie Zar
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
channels mentioned.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/

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 brandingwikipedia.org 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 [hidden email] 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

[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/

[3] https://snohetta.com/

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project

* 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Pine W
Hello,

First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
you, Essie.

Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
(all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
months.

I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
in its current form.

Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Mike Peel
Hi all,

I’m on the other side of things - I think it would be good to simplify our branding, and ‘Wikipedia’ is the obvious brand to go with. I’d love to see us talking about ‘Wikipedia Data’, and ‘Wikipedia Media, etc. (maybe with obvious cross-wiki tabs at the top of the projects!), without the confusion of ‘Wikileaks’, ‘Wikia’, etc. I don’t think that a yes/no Meta RfC on this project right now would help, as there would be an obvious knee-jerk reaction.

I also don’t think that the ‘brandingwikipedia’ website helps, though. If you want to ask the general public about Wikipedia branding, it makes sense - you can just click ‘like’ to the suggested tags and maybe leave a comment, and that’s it. However, that’s not how the Wikimedia community works, and that’s the population that you need to convince.

If you want this to work, then I think there’s two ways to go: start discussions on-wiki about the pros and cons, provide data in response to questions and emotional responses, and help the community reach a consensus with you about the way forward; or just go ahead and make the change, weather the reactions, and see what happens. I suspect only one of those approaches would work in the long-run, but either would be better than having off-wiki processes and then claiming that they have consensus. Of course, you can try an approach with one Wikimedia project at a time, and see how it goes.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 13 Mar 2020, at 18:12, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> you, Essie.
>
> Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
> (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
> the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
> the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> months.
>
> I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
> in its current form.
>
> Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
> with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
> this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
> parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Pine W
Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
more accepting of the process.

Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.

Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
money on outside consultants.

So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Yaroslav Blanter
We just had an RfC on Meta which gave 90% opposes. I do not see how any
serious rebranding discussions could still be happening after this result
has become apparent. For me personally, the question is closed at least for
several years.

Best
Yaroslav

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Dennis During
In reply to this post by Pine W
I, for one, welcome Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Source, Wikipedia
Species, Wikipedia Commons.

Why is it, though, that others go the other way? like American Airlines
subordinating to AMR, Google to Alphabet.  Citibank went in a direction the
opposite of the way that WMF is going, with Citi becoming a prefix with
multiple uses.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:48 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Pine W
I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far, it looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we operate, or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of buzz, little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong, and they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hello,

First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
you, Essie.

Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
(all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
months.

I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
in its current form.

Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Essie Zar
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> 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 brandingwikipedia.org 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 [hidden email] 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
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> * 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Essie Zar
Essie,

The answer to that proposal was a clear, unambiguous "no". Not "keep
asking".

Immediately stop this process. And don't use an agency blocked for spamming
our projects.

Todd

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 11:33 AM Essie Zar <[hidden email]> 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
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> 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 brandingwikipedia.org 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 [hidden email] 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
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> * 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Dennis During
Perhaps you do, but do the volunteer communities of the projects you would like to rename share this enthusiasm?
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dennis During
Sent: 14 March 2020 00:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

I, for one, welcome Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Source, Wikipedia
Species, Wikipedia Commons.

Why is it, though, that others go the other way? like American Airlines
subordinating to AMR, Google to Alphabet.  Citibank went in a direction the
opposite of the way that WMF is going, with Citi becoming a prefix with
multiple uses.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:48 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Fæ
In reply to this post by Essie Zar
The movement has events a couple of magnitudes more important and
urgent to spend time on.

As for being invited to take part in a "brand network" discussion, of
all places on *Facebook*, this is so fundamentally wrong, I would
think it was a joke.

WMF management, stop flushing away the donor's money on this, please.
It has already been overwhelmingly rejected, failed, and not firmly
ending it makes you appear unable to stop paying consultants to make
up more marketing jargon nonsense to justify their invoice.

Fae

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 17:33, Essie Zar <[hidden email]> 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
> channels mentioned.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> 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 brandingwikipedia.org 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 [hidden email] 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
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> * 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/>
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Essie Zar
I put a reply on the "What does free knowledge mean to you" questionnaire, but it did not turn up on the list below the edit box. Is the set of published replies being censored or cherry-picked to remove anything that someone does not like?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Essie Zar
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:48 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

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
channels mentioned.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/

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 brandingwikipedia.org 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 [hidden email] 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

[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/

[3] https://snohetta.com/

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project

* 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> 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 brandingwikipedia.org 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 [hidden email] 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
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> * 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]>
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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > channels mentioned.
> >
> >
> >
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
> >
> > 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 brandingwikipedia.org
> 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 [hidden email] 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
> >
> > [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
> >
> > [3] https://snohetta.com/
> >
> > [4]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
> >
> > [5]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> >
> > * 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Peter Southwood
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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]>
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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > channels mentioned.
> >
> >
> >
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
> >
> > 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 brandingwikipedia.org
> 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 [hidden email] 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
> >
> > [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
> >
> > [3] https://snohetta.com/
> >
> > [4]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
> >
> > [5]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> >
> > * 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Aron Demian
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 <[hidden email]>
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:[hidden email]] 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> 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:[hidden email]] 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
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 <[hidden email]>
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:[hidden email]] 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> 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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > > channels mentioned.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
> > >
> > > 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 brandingwikipedia.org
> > 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 [hidden email] 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
> > >
> > > [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
> > >
> > > [3] https://snohetta.com/
> > >
> > > [4]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
> > >
> > > [5]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> > >
> > > * 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

metasj
In reply to this post by Essie Zar
Hello Essie,

Given all of the feedback so far, it seems we need a strong brand *network*,
more than a struggle over a single brand; and strong shared identity
*within* the communities and their contributors.

I am glad that recent discussions seem to be grounded in identity and
clarity.  If we want to start leading more with Wikipedia in outreach, in
every language of the world, *nothing* is stopping us.  But a* re*branding &
the resulting ongoing turmoil would have a predictable cost, at a time when
we have many other things to focus on, that needs to be balanced with
obvious gain.

<Pause to remember the projects loved and lost that tapered off within
years of a dramatic, beautiful, extensive rebrand>

Thank you (all) for your extensive work on this.  It would help to be even
more exquisitely clear about the expected outcomes in May and beyond.*

Wikilove, SJ

* I still think of the Wikidata newsletter as a model of regular clarity in
terms of setting expectations.

🌍🌏🌎🌑

On Fri., Mar. 13, 2020, 1:33 p.m. Essie Zar, <[hidden email]> 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
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> 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 brandingwikipedia.org 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 [hidden email] 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
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> * 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Aron Demian
The question then is whether it is the community of English Wikipedia exerting this influence, or WMF failing to allocate resources fairly, and if so, why? Is it just that the massive internet presence of English Wikipedia exerts an irresistible gravitational attraction on the resources like a black hole?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aron Demian
Sent: 15 March 2020 12:25
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
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 <[hidden email]>
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:[hidden email]] 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> 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:[hidden email]] 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I would rather answer a different question: What would it take for us to
share the sum of all knowledge available to us to any and all people in any
and all languages they can read.

The benefit of such a marketing approach and not an antagonistic approach
is that English Wikipedia may do what it does, it may even fit in with what
is shown to work. When we are to share the sum of all the knowledge
available to us, we seek out where this information is and, how we open it
up best to our public. Let me be clear, so far the English Wikipedia has
been my go to project to liberate information to Wikidata. Once it it
there, it becomes easier to provide proper disambiguation and prevent false
friends to pop up later. Maintenance is easier; you do it only once for any
and all our projects.

We have come a long way in getting to the point where Commons is truly
multilingual.. My favourite example is "appelmoes" [1]. What we now really
need is have marketeers to opening Commons up to a public. We should talk
to Google and seek synergy, Commons is valuable when people are to use
legal material for illustration. They have to find it first.

The same goes for Wikisource, what is available for use to a public. How do
we leverage what we have and find all this hard work a public.

We do need research. We do need marketing research and we need a marketing
approach to getting the sum of the knowledge that we have to a public. I do
not want to argue the rights and wrongs of English Wikipedia. I trust them
to appreciate that they are part of the Wikimedia mission to get the public
well informed and provide our information with a neural point of view.
Never mind where this information is or in what language.
Thanks,
       GerardM



[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=haswbstatement%3AP180%3DQ618345&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 16:48, Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The question then is whether it is the community of English Wikipedia
> exerting this influence, or WMF failing to allocate resources fairly, and
> if so, why? Is it just that the massive internet presence of English
> Wikipedia exerts an irresistible gravitational attraction on the resources
> like a black hole?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Aron Demian
> Sent: 15 March 2020 12:25
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> 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:[hidden email]] 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > 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:[hidden email]] 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12