[Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
73 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Andrew Lih
I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow
down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not,
consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and
external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into
consideration.

At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
summary of what I expressed to them:

- Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
recommendation should be seen as just one data point.

- Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
"Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
in certain markets needs much more careful study.

- That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
Wikipedia today.

- We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
et al) working with it.

Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
WMF employees, may not be aware of.

- Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.

What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
being the wrong message at the wrong time.

- Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
all others.

I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.

-Andrew


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives
> you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not
> about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation
> would vanish even more our sister projects.
>
> On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
> a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and
> Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it
> Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
> the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves
> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
> opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying
> totally with one of the products.
>
> And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name,
> but on the product and the logo families.
> ________________________________
> From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of
> Strainu <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
>
> Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> a
> scris:
>
> > > At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
> > > and "user group".
> > > "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
> > > association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
> > > already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
> > >
> >
> > You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
> this
> > issue, albeit at a broader level :)
> >
> > For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> > looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
> to
> > support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>
>
> One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
> will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
> data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
>
> This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
> (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
>
> Strainu
>
> >
> > You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
> indeed
> > the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> > of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> > current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
> more
> > profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> > exist.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > (1)
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> > Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>



--
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: [hidden email]
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
Thank Andrew for summing up all the issues around this rebranding issue. I really dont believe it should be done.
I can’t see that  this could be done without community consultation. I doubt all versions of wikipedia could agree in a unanimous move.
How would Wikipedia be named if wikimedia takes its name?
As a wikimedian, I think that Wikimedia is just a lot more than Wikipedia, and that the similarity of the names already establishes a link between the two.

Kind regards,

Natacha / Nattes à chat


> Le 10 avr. 2019 à 21:05, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow
> down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not,
> consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and
> external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into
> consideration.
>
> At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
> Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
> summary of what I expressed to them:
>
> - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
> let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
> that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
> consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
> recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
>
> - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
> brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
> "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
> many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
> just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
> and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
> engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
> partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
> Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
> China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
> whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
> in certain markets needs much more careful study.
>
> - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
> enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
> umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
> primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
> I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
> journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
> Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
> would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
> Wikipedia today.
>
> - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
> was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
> with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
> outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
> as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
> the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
> metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
> database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
> anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
> incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
> has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
> et al) working with it.
>
> Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
> never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
> But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
> do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
> manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
> vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
> reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
> WMF employees, may not be aware of.
>
> - Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
> you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
> consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
> literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
> equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
> content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
> nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
> community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
> of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
> having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
> when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
> text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
> content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
>
> What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
> that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
> dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
> forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
> de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
> Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
> needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
> is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
> what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
> being the wrong message at the wrong time.
>
> - Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
> as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
> Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
> information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
> a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
> Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
> in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
> in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
> could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
> solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
> all others.
>
> I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
> consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
> Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
> broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
> more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
>> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
>> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives
>> you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not
>> about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation
>> would vanish even more our sister projects.
>>
>> On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
>> a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and
>> Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it
>> Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
>> the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves
>> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
>> opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying
>> totally with one of the products.
>>
>> And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name,
>> but on the product and the logo families.
>> ________________________________
>> From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of
>> Strainu <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
>>
>> Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> a
>> scris:
>>
>>>> At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
>>>> and "user group".
>>>> "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
>>>> association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
>>>> already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
>> this
>>> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>>>
>>> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
>>> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
>> to
>>> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>>
>>
>> One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
>> will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
>> data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
>>
>> This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
>> (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
>>
>> Strainu
>>
>>>
>>> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
>> indeed
>>> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
>>> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
>>> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
>> more
>>> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1)
>>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
>>> Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>
>
>
> --
> -Andrew Lih
> Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
> US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
> Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
> Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
> Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
> University, Columbia University, USC
> ---
> Email: [hidden email]
> WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
> PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

James Salsman-2
Is there a middle ground that would satisfy all the objections? E.g.,
"Wikipedias and media" as a brand identifier?


On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:25 PM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thank Andrew for summing up all the issues around this rebranding issue. I really dont believe it should be done.
> I can’t see that  this could be done without community consultation. I doubt all versions of wikipedia could agree in a unanimous move.
> How would Wikipedia be named if wikimedia takes its name?
> As a wikimedian, I think that Wikimedia is just a lot more than Wikipedia, and that the similarity of the names already establishes a link between the two.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Natacha / Nattes à chat
>
>
> > Le 10 avr. 2019 à 21:05, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow
> > down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not,
> > consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and
> > external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into
> > consideration.
> >
> > At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
> > Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
> > summary of what I expressed to them:
> >
> > - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
> > let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
> > that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
> > consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
> > recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
> >
> > - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
> > brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
> > "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
> > many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
> > just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
> > and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
> > engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
> > partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
> > Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
> > China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
> > whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
> > in certain markets needs much more careful study.
> >
> > - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
> > enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
> > umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
> > primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
> > I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
> > journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
> > Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
> > would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
> > Wikipedia today.
> >
> > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
> > was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
> > with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
> > outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
> > as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
> > the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
> > metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
> > database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
> > anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
> > incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
> > has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
> > et al) working with it.
> >
> > Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
> > never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
> > But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
> > do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
> > manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
> > vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
> > reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
> > WMF employees, may not be aware of.
> >
> > - Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
> > you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
> > consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
> > literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
> > equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
> > content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
> > nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
> > community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
> > of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
> > having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
> > when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
> > text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
> > content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
> >
> > What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
> > that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
> > dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
> > forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
> > de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
> > Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
> > needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
> > is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
> > what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
> > being the wrong message at the wrong time.
> >
> > - Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
> > as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
> > Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
> > information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
> > a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
> > Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
> > in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
> > in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
> > could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
> > solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
> > all others.
> >
> > I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
> > consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
> > Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
> > broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
> > more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
> >> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
> >> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives
> >> you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not
> >> about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation
> >> would vanish even more our sister projects.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
> >> a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and
> >> Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it
> >> Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
> >> the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves
> >> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
> >> opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying
> >> totally with one of the products.
> >>
> >> And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name,
> >> but on the product and the logo families.
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of
> >> Strainu <[hidden email]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM
> >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
> >>
> >> Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> a
> >> scris:
> >>
> >>>> At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
> >>>> and "user group".
> >>>> "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
> >>>> association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
> >>>> already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
> >> this
> >>> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
> >>>
> >>> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> >>> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
> >> to
> >>> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
> >>
> >>
> >> One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
> >> will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
> >> data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
> >>
> >> This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
> >> (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
> >>
> >> Strainu
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
> >> indeed
> >>> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> >>> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> >>> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
> >> more
> >>> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> >>> exist.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (1)
> >>>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> >>> Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Andrew Lih
> > Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
> > US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
> > Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
> > Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
> > Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
> > University, Columbia University, USC
> > ---
> > Email: [hidden email]
> > WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
> > PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Thanks Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed.

Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it would create new problems with non-WMF-wikis.
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Michael Maggs
The OpenWiki Foundation?

Michael

> On 10 Apr 2019, at 21:51, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Andrew for the insights. I agree with most of what you have proposed.
>
> Actually there's a way to make everything easier: The Wiki Foundation. But it would create new problems with non-WMF-wikis.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Strainu
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
Andrew,

While I appreciate your huge knowledge of English Wikipedia, this
whole email - being so en.wp centric - sounds like an argument for
simplification and for "going with the majority". Here is how I see
it, as a member of a much smaller community.

În mie., 10 apr. 2019 la 22:05, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> a scris:

>
> I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow
> down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not,
> consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and
> external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into
> consideration.
>
> At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
> Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
> summary of what I expressed to them:
>
> - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
> let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
> that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
> consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
> recommendation should be seen as just one data point.

That is absolutely true.That's why I suggested that the proposal be
considered in the context of the strategic discussion.

>
> - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
> brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
> "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
> many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
> just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
> and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
> engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
> partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
> Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
> China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
> whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
> in certain markets needs much more careful study.
>
> - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
> enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
> umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
> primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
> I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
> journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
> Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
> would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
> Wikipedia today.

I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
created relatively regularly and many people who started with
Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
projects.

>
> - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
> was not true even 3 years ago.

While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!

> Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
> with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
> outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
> as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
> the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
> metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
> database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
> anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
> incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
> has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
> et al) working with it.

Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
or photographers.

>
> Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
> never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
> But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
> do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
> manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
> vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
> reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
> WMF employees, may not be aware of.
>
> - Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
> you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
> consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
> literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
> equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
> content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
> nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
> community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
> of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
> having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
> when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
> text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
> content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.

Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
required to understand how data is organized).

>
> What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
> that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
> dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
> forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
> de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
> Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
> needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
> is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
> what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
> being the wrong message at the wrong time.
>
> - Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
> as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.

I disagree with the second phrase. Just because Wikimedia Commons
would become WikiCommons (the proposal which I support the most and
which has the lowest chance of happening without a tremendous scandal)
the community and their policies would not be affected beyond a simple
search-and-replace. I think of the branding as an exonym - we might or
might not like it, but it doesn't change who we are - it doesn't even
change the endonym we use.

> Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
> information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
> a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
> Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
> in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
> in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
> could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
> solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
> all others.

This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
(admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
holds true for the renaming.

Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
should be analyzed independently for its own merits.

Regards,
   Strainu

>
> I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
> consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
> Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
> broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
> more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
> > the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
> > represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives
> > you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not
> > about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation
> > would vanish even more our sister projects.
> >
> > On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
> > a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and
> > Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it
> > Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
> > the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves
> > The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
> > opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying
> > totally with one of the products.
> >
> > And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name,
> > but on the product and the logo families.
> > ________________________________
> > From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of
> > Strainu <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
> >
> > Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> a
> > scris:
> >
> > > > At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
> > > > and "user group".
> > > > "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
> > > > association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
> > > > already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
> > this
> > > issue, albeit at a broader level :)
> > >
> > > For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
> > > looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
> > to
> > > support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
> >
> >
> > One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
> > will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
> > data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
> >
> > This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
> > (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > >
> > > You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
> > indeed
> > > the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
> > > of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
> > > current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
> > more
> > > profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (1)
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
> > > Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> -Andrew Lih
> Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
> US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
> Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
> Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
> Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
> University, Columbia University, USC
> ---
> Email: [hidden email]
> WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
> PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
In reply to this post by Michael Maggs
OpenWiki would be an even stranger and less known brand!
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
Thanks Andrew! Let me repeat here my vote for “Wikidata” as the brand name, too

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 9:05 PM, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I agree with Galder's and Camelia's thoughts and believe we should slow
> down to think about this issue as a whole. We cannot, and should not,
> consider this purely a "branding" exercise because the internal and
> external risks go well beyond this. We need to carefully take them into
> consideration.
>
> At the Berlin Wikimedia Summit, I was asked by Zack McCune and Heather
> Walls about the branding issue. We talked about this at length so here is a
> summary of what I expressed to them:
>
> - Outside view: I respect the work the comms/branding team has done, but
> let's remember that the recommendations are from an outside consultancy
> that focuses on only one dimension of this issue. Their work does not
> consider our internal community and movement dynamics as a whole. So the
> recommendation should be seen as just one data point.
>
> - Unproven causality: While it's true that familiarity of the "Wikimedia"
> brand is low, the case has not been made that unifying our identity under
> "Wikipedia" is a solution for the particular markets in question. There are
> many other factors regarding adoption and recognition of any brand, not
> just Wikimedia, including the commercial context of mobile/Internet users
> and default consumer entry points to the information landscape (ie. search
> engine settings, starting home page, financial incentives and
> partnerships). Other factors are: first mover advantages (e.g. Korea, with
> Naver.com's dominance over Wikipedia), or government regulation (e.g.
> China, Turkey censorship) that affect any brand footprint. Remaking our
> whole identity for the possibility that we *might* get better recognition
> in certain markets needs much more careful study.
>
> - That was then, this is now: If this was 10 years ago, I would
> enthusiastically embrace the idea of putting everything under the Wikipedia
> umbrella. In 2003, before the WMF had staff and resources, I was one of the
> primary volunteer contacts for almost all press inquiries about Wikipedia.
> I know the headaches of having to explain what "Wikimedia" is to
> journalists and the public. The book I wrote in 2009 was titled "The
> Wikipedia Revolution" for name recognition, even though I knew "Wikimedia"
> would be more accurate. But that was then. We are a whole lot more than
> Wikipedia today.
>
> - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way that
> was not true even 3 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is a community of its own
> with users of its content who never touch Wikipedia. See the many news
> outlets and publications that use now use CC licensed Commons images to use
> as visuals for their stories and products. Wikidata has quickly emerged as
> the de facto way for libraries, archives and museums to connect their
> metadata to each other. They are adopting it as their global crosswalk
> database that has been proven to be more scalable and highly available than
> anything in the information landscape. Wikidata is now regularly
> incorporated into conferences outside of our own Wikimedia community, and
> has the largest museum and library groups (Europeana, AAC, OCLC, IFLA-WLIC,
> et al) working with it.
>
> Many times, I've had librarians and curators tell me the equivalent of: "I
> never engaged with Wikipedia, because 'article writing' is not what we do.
> But metadata and authority control records on Wikidata coincide with what I
> do every day." I just had a phone call with a prominent museum collections
> manager who said her goal was to eliminate their own local metadata
> vocabulary in favor of using all Wikidata Q numbers instead. We are
> reaching a new public with Commons and Wikidata that many Wikipedians, and
> WMF employees, may not be aware of.
>
> - Wikipedia has a systemic bias: The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that
> you have to know how to read. This sounds ridiculously obvious but
> consider: in developing countries, we're often looking at a maximum 70%
> literacy rate. That's a big hurdle for our strategic goal of knowledge
> equity. We have yet to tap into video, multimedia, interactive and audio
> content as a major mode of knowledge sharing. What of oral histories or
> nontraditional/non-academic forms of human knowledge? The Wikipedia
> community has been neglectful or outright hostile to the addition and use
> of video and multimedia content in these areas. (I know this first-hand,
> having headed video initiatives or having students consistently reverted
> when adding multimedia.) Like it or not, there is an ingrained culture of
> text-heavy articles being the dominant mode for acceptable encyclopedic
> content which stands as a blocker for our evolution.
>
> What does this have to do with the branding exercise? The internal risk is
> that by promoting "Wikipedia" as not just the flagship project but the
> dominant overarching identity of our work, multimedia initiatives and new
> forms of knowledge will be even more suppressed within the movement and
> de-prioritized. We know Youtube is the number one how-to site on the
> Internet with people learning by watching and listening, without even
> needing to know how to read. Indicating that the written mode of knowledge
> is the dominant thrust of the movement is antithetical to all we know about
> what is going on with mobiles, video content and visual learning. It risks
> being the wrong message at the wrong time.
>
> - Should Wikipedia culture be the movement's culture? Rebranding everything
> as "Wikipedia" would effectively do this, so we need to think carefully.
> Already there is an underground war regarding Wikidata use in Wikipedia
> information boxes, and whether "control" of that data should be ceded from
> a language-specific Wikipedia edition to the language-neutral, but emerging
> Wikidata project. There is also an underground war about short descriptions
> in English Wikipedia versus using the collaboratively edited descriptions
> in Wikidata. The risk is that adopting "Wikipedia" as the unified brand
> could very well undermine our community spirit of coming together for
> solutions by, intentionally or not, blessing an entrenched approach above
> all others.
>
> I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm worried by the lack of thoughtful
> consideration that a re-branding would have on our movement internally.
> Much of this is because our own community communications channels have
> broken down, and we don't have great ways for deliberation. I hope we have
> more considered conversation and not rush into any decisions on this.
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:14 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I also think that there are some branding issues, but let me focus just in
>> the opposite way: Wikimedia is not a bug, is a feature. When you say you
>> represent WikiMedia, then someone asks about why an M ad not a P and gives
>> you the opportunity to talk about our free knowledge ecosystem, that is not
>> about an Encyclopedia, is much more. So deleting the M from the equation
>> would vanish even more our sister projects.
>>
>> On the other hand, think that maybe in 2022 (for example) we could create
>> a new project based entirely on videos with free content from Wikipedia and
>> Commons, that could be the best project by 2030... and we call it
>> Wikivideo. Would still be a good idea to be called Wikivideo, a project by
>> the Wikipedia Foundation, or would we start thinking on calling ourselves
>> The Wikivideo Foundation? I think that being Wikimedia gives us better
>> opportunities to make better decisions on our products than identifying
>> totally with one of the products.
>>
>> And I think there are branding issues, yes, but this are not on the name,
>> but on the product and the logo families.
>> ________________________________
>> From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of
>> Strainu <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:56 AM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
>>
>> Pe marți, 9 aprilie 2019, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> a
>> scris:
>>
>>>> At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
>>>> and "user group".
>>>> "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
>>>> association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
>>>> already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about
>> this
>>> issue, albeit at a broader level :)
>>>
>>> For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
>>> looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need
>> to
>>> support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)
>>
>>
>> One would hope that both that group as well as others will be informed and
>> will take into account the results of the study, which confirm anecdotic
>> data that almost anyone doing outreach knows.
>>
>> This is not a matter to be left at  the foundation's sole discretion
>> (although I personally approve the proposals to various degrees).
>>
>> Strainu
>>
>>>
>>> You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or
>> indeed
>>> the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
>>> of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
>>> current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much
>> more
>>> profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1)
>>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_
>>> Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>
>
>
> --
> -Andrew Lih
> Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
> US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
> Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
> Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
> Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
> University, Columbia University, USC
> ---
> Email: [hidden email]
> WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
> PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Elena Lappen
Have I missed something, or this discussion is nowhere to be seen at any of
the Village Pumps of the Portuguese Wikipedia?
Also, is there any point in discussing this onwiki, as it was in Commons by
part of the community[1], if apparently there is not any following by the
people in charge of this process?

Why is this being planned to be presented before the BoT, without any
meaningful discussion of such a dramatic change at the projects where it
will have its impact?

Regards,
Paulo

[1] -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#WMF_proposal_would_rename_%22Wikimedia_Commons%22_to_%22Wikicommons%22

Elena Lappen <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia terça, 9/04/2019 à(s)
09:58:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
> community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback via
> email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and
> individual contributors.
>
> I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but wanted
> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session
> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide
> feedback.
>
> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
>
> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
>
> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
> the talk page afterwards.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Elena
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
>
>
> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
>
>
> --
> Elena Lappen
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
> ensure
> > we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible.
> ::
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
> > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> >
> > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
> get
> > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> >
> > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
> commissioned
> > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > values.
> >
> > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
> America.
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and
> is
> > fast growing.
> >
> > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata
> at
> > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> >
> > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> > reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
> relationship
> > to Wikipedia.
> >
> > - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
> high
> > level of support for our mission.
> >
> > Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> > strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> > suggestions include:
> >
> > - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> > drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> >
> > - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> > which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> > other projects.
> >
> > - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> > that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert
> the
> > connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
> >
> > This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> >
> > By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> > them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> > collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
> with
> > more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as
> possible
> > before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> > community response.
> >
> > We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> > and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with
> > us.
> >
> > For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12]
> or
> > email [hidden email] with direct feedback. You can also use
> > either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
> >
> > We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
> >
> >
> > - Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> >
> > [3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
> >
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
> >
> > [5]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities
> >
> > [6]
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
> >
> > [7]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
> >
> > [8]
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_unifying_the_visual_identity_of_Wikimedia_projects_-_a_step_towards_maturity_-_Wikimania_2007.pdf&page=56
> >
> > [9]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/project_summary
> >
> > [10]
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand_Research_Report.pdf
> >
> > [11]
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_for_2030.pdf
> >
> > [12]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Zack McCune (he/him)
> >
> > Senior Global 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Strainu
Responses below:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> projects.
>

For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one
of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that
the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)

https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/


> > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
> that
> > was not true even 3 years ago.
>
> While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
> but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
> relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
> about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
>

Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As
a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we
have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on
Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared
data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about
why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.


> Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
> branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
> or photographers.
>

This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force
of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's
mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my
knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.

Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
> Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
> required to understand how data is organized).
>

I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read
to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of
challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright"
as the biggest user challenge we have. :)


> This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
> (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
> largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
> changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
> holds true for the renaming.
>

Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia
where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.


> Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
> single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
> proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
> should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
>

Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a
broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.

Thanks
-Andrew
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

metasj
Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand.
It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked
society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.

Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with
the focus  and policies of one project.  So if we shift towards calling
things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out
of our way to expand its connotations.  That takes an internal campaign: w
thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.

SJ

P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names,
I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a
chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.

--

On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Responses below:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> > Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> > Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> > languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> > created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> > Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> > Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> > mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> > from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> > people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> > projects.
> >
>
> For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one
> of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
> critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
> quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
> Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that
> the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
>
>
> https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/
>
>
> > > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
> > that
> > > was not true even 3 years ago.
> >
> > While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
> > but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
> > relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
> > about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
> >
>
> Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As
> a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we
> have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on
> Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared
> data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about
> why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.
>
>
> > Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
> > branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
> > or photographers.
> >
>
> This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force
> of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's
> mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my
> knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.
>
> Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
> > Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
> > required to understand how data is organized).
> >
>
> I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read
> to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of
> challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright"
> as the biggest user challenge we have. :)
>
>
> > This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
> > (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
> > largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
> > changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
> > holds true for the renaming.
> >
>
> Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia
> where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.
>
>
> > Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
> > single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
> > proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
> > should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
> >
>
> Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a
> broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.
>
> Thanks
> -Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata
will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad argument.
Use some hindsight and compare Wikipedia and its impact with Wikidata at
the same age, do the same for Commons. It is also a useless argument
because success comes in different shapes and forms and we should foster
success and value where we find it. The biggest issue is not to be
overwhelmed with the complacency that comes with what is mistaken as the
success of English Wikipedia. Complacency because English Wikipedia could
be much better.

We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It
is where over 50% of our resources are spend. It is maintained by a bias
for everything related to what we do in English. We promote Wikipedia as a
tool for university students and its focus is the USA. The reality is that
we need high school students to write articles in most of our other
languages. Oh and do not rely on research; Wikipedia research is biased
because it is almost exclusively English Wikipedia what is studied. Even
when it is not, it relies on studies with the same bias.

When we truly want to be more international, we should focus on raising
money outside of the AngloSaxon countries. The money is there, just
consider known statistics. Spend everything that is raised "elsewhere",
elsewhere and add significant bias where we have the best 'return on
investment'. NB it is my business to know fundraising and we under perform
in the Netherlands by a large margin. There is no "need" to change our
really successful fundraising except when we use it as an instrument to
attract attention for our brands.

Both Wikidata and Commons are English. It is not that there are no projects
that use other languages within these projects but it is dominantly English
in the same way Wikipedia is dominantly English. Giving examples of these
projects is mistaking exceptions for the rule. Case in point; show me all
the Wikidata editors and show me those editors that do not communicate in
English.. show me their success.

When this notion that Wikimedia is English is to be countered, consider how
we can share our resources. For me the best example how we miss the boat is
found in Wikidata; we were promised an official replacement of Listeria.
Listeria is great but not good enough. The promise has not been kept, we
are still pissing in the wind and manually updating lists in the Wikipedias.

Please let us have a hard look at the efficiency at which we "share the sum
of all knowledge". Once the giddiness has left the house, let us work in
earnest and expand the 50% percent of our traffic and serve the underserved.
Thanks,
         GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 06:38, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand.
> It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked
> society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.
>
> Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with
> the focus  and policies of one project.  So if we shift towards calling
> things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out
> of our way to expand its connotations.  That takes an internal campaign: w
> thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.
>
> SJ
>
> P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names,
> I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a
> chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.
>
> --
>
> On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih, <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Responses below:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> > > Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> > > Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> > > languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> > > created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> > > Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> > > Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> > > mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> > > from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> > > people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> > > projects.
> > >
> >
> > For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was
> one
> > of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
> > critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
> > quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
> > Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say
> that
> > the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/
> >
> >
> > > > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > > > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > > > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a
> way
> > > that
> > > > was not true even 3 years ago.
> > >
> > > While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
> > > but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
> > > relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
> > > about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
> > >
> >
> > Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project?
> As
> > a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project
> we
> > have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on
> > Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared
> > data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about
> > why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.
> >
> >
> > > Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
> > > branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
> > > or photographers.
> > >
> >
> > This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full
> force
> > of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons.
> It's
> > mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my
> > knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.
> >
> > Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
> > > Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
> > > required to understand how data is organized).
> > >
> >
> > I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to
> read
> > to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of
> > challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright"
> > as the biggest user challenge we have. :)
> >
> >
> > > This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
> > > (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
> > > largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
> > > changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
> > > holds true for the renaming.
> > >
> >
> > Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan
> Wikipedia
> > where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.
> >
> >
> > > Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
> > > single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
> > > proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
> > > should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
> > >
> >
> > Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a
> > broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Andrew
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Joseph Seddon-4
> We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It
> is where over 50% of our resources are spend.
>

Do we?

Based on what?
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Fæ
In reply to this post by Zachary McCune
Seeing this "brand" discussion eat up all the limited available unpaid
volunteer oxygen on wikimedia-l makes me sad.

If the WMF's biggest strategy topic this year is to enter into navel
gazing about its brand, then the WMF looks like it has a problem with
setting meaningful work for its senior management, or maybe just its
team from Wolff Olins; anyone seen a budget line for this consultancy,
I'm assuming this advice is not free, or cheap?

If volunteers want to chew over something that is more meaningful how
about /transparency/, a target that by all practical measures has got
visibly worse over the last five years and appears to have been
deliberately dropped from every top level strategy document:
* Should the WMF cap CEO personal expenses to under $1,000,000 a year,
and publicly report on all individual senior management total expenses
over $50,000 a year AND report on these within a year of the spend?
* Should Wikimedia project volunteers be able to request and view the
reports that the WMF holds about them, in the same way as is legally
required under European law?
* Should the WMF publish flight travel expenses, and set targets for
decreasing year on year flight travel as part of actively doing
anything at all to decrease the WMF's contribution to climate change?

Ps, it is worth looking at some of the links in the original email, it
is revealing that WMF senior management appears to believe that it is
a competitor with the commercial worlds of social media, YouTube and
internet search engines. If this is how strategy and targets are
created, then the "sum of human knowledge" goals are horribly watered
down between ideology and delivery through the eyes of management
consultants.

Thanks,
Fae


On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 03:14, Zack McCune <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure
> we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>
> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>
> We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned
> by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> values.
>
> The study revealed some interesting trends:
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
> fast growing.
>
> - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at
> 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
>
> - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship
> to Wikipedia.
>
> - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
> level of support for our mission.
>
> Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> suggestions include:
>
> - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
>
> - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> other projects.
>
> - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
> connections between projects (e.g. “______ - A Wikipedia project”).
>
> This is not a new idea.[7][8]
>
> By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with
> more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible
> before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> community response.
>
> We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
>
> For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page [12] or
> email [hidden email] with direct feedback. You can also use
> either of these channels to request to join a group meeting.
>
> We know this is big topic and we’re excited to hear from you!
>
>
> - Zack McCune and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department
>
>
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
>
> [3] https://www.wolffolins.com/
>
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications
>
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities
>
> [6]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/02/26/leading-with-wikipedia-a-brand-proposal-for-2030/
>
> [7] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
>
> [8]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrengthening_and_unifying_the_visual_identity_of_Wikimedia_projects_-_a_step_towards_maturity_-_Wikimania_2007.pdf&page=56
>
> [9]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/project_summary
>
> [10]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Brand_Research_Report.pdf
>
> [11]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_for_2030.pdf
>
> [12]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review
>
>
>
> --
>
> Zack McCune (he/him)
>
> Senior Global 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>



--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Seddon-4
Hoi,
Thank you for your well argued point of view. I followed the statistics as
provided by Erik Zachte for a long time and the trend was slowly but surely
where based on the statistics of Wikipedia alone English Wikipedia traffic
moved slowly but surely from over fifty to under fifty percent. Then there
is traffic from everything else..

As to accounting for the spending of the Wikimedia Foundation itself,
MediaWiki is developed for Wikipedia. Development of Wikidata is done by
the German chapter.  So spending of over 50% for English Wikipedia is
better than plausible. When new features are introduced, they fit English
Wikipedia perfectly. There is no indication whatsoever that features are
developed specifically for the small Wikipedias. It is easy enough to argue
that many of the "must have" Wikipedia features are an impediment for the
development of the small Wikipedias and as  Research is focused on English
as well, there is not much to say otherwise.

Now, please move on and consider the other points I made.
Thanks,
        GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:55, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic.
> It
> > is where over 50% of our resources are spend.
> >
>
> Do we?
>
> Based on what?
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

metasj
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Sat., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that
> Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad
> argument.
>

You misunderstand me. I do not mean in importance: Wikidata will surely be
equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two
are hard to compare and not independent.

I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will
keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long.
Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many
places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable
websites;  the standard visual template for reference works.

Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much
more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal
of the original.

====

That said !

Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I
reckon a central
 branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions
(including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual.  This takes
a combination of software, translators, and brand focus.  It is the obvious
way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented
regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to
speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network
effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and
colleagues.

Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that
shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more
contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection
and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an
updraft for all.

Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on
each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental
brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web
designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network
campaign.

We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now
relandscape the entire neighborhood.

SJ

p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return to its
original name, MultimediaWiki.
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Zachary McCune
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:14 PM Zack McCune <[hidden email]> wrote:

> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure
> we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>
> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>

Dear all,
I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question
underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public
awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates (as
opposed to the projects themselves)?

Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me
like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content
to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do
outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I
give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about
Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So
I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.

The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
*organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're
not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not
translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.

Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world
of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our
projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
too, I am skeptical.

regards,
Phoebe
(former WMF trustee)
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Nathan Awrich
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Dear all,
> I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question
> underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public
> awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates (as
> opposed to the projects themselves)?
>
> Having Wikimedia be a more recognizable entity or brand does not seem to me
> like it would help us in our core goals, of recruiting editors and content
> to the *projects*. We do not typically use the Wikimedia name to do
> outreach, or to talk about the projects; the handful of us that are
> insiders and give presentations about the WMF is small, relative to the
> number of educators and librarians and editors talking about Wikipedia. (I
> give many trainings on editing Wikipedia every year; talking about
> Wikimedia is irrelevant for this purpose). Perhaps a rebrand would make
> fundraising easier -- but we already use the project brand for that, as
> most fundraising is directly off the projects, and the fundraising that
> isn't (grants and large donations) has a lot of communication around it. So
> I'm not sure how a rebrand would help here either.
>
> The premise of this whole exercise is that people knowing about Wikimedia
> as an entity will somehow help us. But we are not trying to recruit
> contributors to the Foundation, or to the chapters; we are trying to
> recruit them to the projects, and if the infrastructure of our network is
> invisible, I am fine with that. I think to increase the centrality of the
> *organization* is a distraction that misses the point of both our mission
> and the role of the organization, which is to provide infrastructure. We're
> not selling shoes here; more brand awareness of the Foundation does not
> translate into a direct furthering of our mission, and more focus on the
> organization is at best a distraction for overworked volunteers.
>
> Like Andrew, I might have been excited about naming it the Wikipedia
> Foundation ten or fifteen years ago. But now, I think there is a wide world
> of free knowledge that we want to imagine -- including a future of our
> projects remixed into something new, beyond Wikipedia. So for that reason
> too, I am skeptical.
>
> regards,
> Phoebe
> (former WMF trustee)


This is the most persuasive perspective I've read so far, thank you Phoebe.

I also wonder why it makes sense to pursue a WMF rebranding project (which
is expensive in terms of time, money, volunteer effort and in other ways)
at the same time as the strategy process is questioning  whether the WMF
(or chapters, UGs, etc.) are the right vehicles for the movement goals. If
the strategy process is honestly holding open the possibility that the WMF
might not be the right organization to lead, then rebranding before the
process is complete is a strange decision.
_______________________________________________
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by metasj
Hoi,
The basic assumption of Wikipedia is the article. When we are truly to
reach out and take a next step, it has to be more than Wikipedia, more than
obsessing with articles. People are not looking for articles, they are
looking for information on subjects. Information on subjects may be
delivered in the format of articles but it may also be delivered in the
format of books data presentations and images.

This obsession of Wikipedia being the objective of all of that we do, the
format that is to apply to everything we do is holding us back. A few
examples; we do not officially present the data of Wikidata in a format
that is useful to humans. Such formats have existed for years in the format
of Reasonator and recently in the format of Scholia. Compare that to the
bickering about including Wikidata in Wikipedia and it is obvious how
Wikipedia is holding us back. Several volunteers used data from many
sources and created a wealth of Wikipedia articles that would otherwise
have hardly any at all. The verdict: it is not by a community and
consequently it cannot be maintained. No research has been done, no
outreach happened. It is a success story that does not fit the mold and is
ignored. Within the movement there is a general agreement that the gender
gap affects us all. It is why we celebrate the success of the diminishment
of this gap and rightfully so as it is pervasive and recognisable in all of
our projects. It is however not our biggest bias. Our biggest bias is the
AngloAmerican bias.

The only way out of it I see is in a change of outlook. Our outlook needs
to be less Wikipedia and its articles and more about what DO we have on a
subject and expose them in any form we have. Expose them together with all
the organisations that have a compatible outlook. When we actively engage
people who seek information by asking them to expand on what they seek, we
will slowly but surely  increase the amount of information we hold and have
this information in all of our languages.

This different approach can happily coexist with our Wikipedia bias. It
does not take much to get it of the ground. What it does take is the
realisation that Wikimedia is NOT Wikipedia. This is necessary for this
experiment to start..
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 17:56, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that
> > Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a
> sad
> > argument.
> >
>
> You misunderstand me. I do not mean in importance: Wikidata will surely be
> equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two
> are hard to compare and not independent.
>
> I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will
> keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long.
> Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many
> places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable
> websites;  the standard visual template for reference works.
>
> Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much
> more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal
> of the original.
>
> ====
>
> That said !
>
> Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I
> reckon a central
>  branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions
> (including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual.  This takes
> a combination of software, translators, and brand focus.  It is the obvious
> way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented
> regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to
> speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network
> effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and
> colleagues.
>
> Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that
> shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more
> contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection
> and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an
> updraft for all.
>
> Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on
> each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental
> brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web
> designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network
> campaign.
>
> We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now
> relandscape the entire neighborhood.
>
> SJ
>
> p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return to its
> original name, MultimediaWiki.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.

And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future.
_______________________________________________
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>
1234