[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

Rebecca O'Neill
I agree Galder!

I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
message easier would be of huge benefit to us.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 19:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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>



--
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland <http://wikimedia.ie>
<http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/drama,-music-and-screen/screen/digital-media-research.aspx>
Blogs rebecca-oneill.com and The Restless Curator
<http://restlesscurator.rebecca-oneill.com/>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Hoi,
When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again)
Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can
share my work/your work on your wikipedia.
Thanks,
    GerardM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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

Yaroslav Blanter
To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not
yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more
close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the
record, I am administrator on both projects.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:31 PM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again)
> Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can
> share my work/your work on your wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Anders Wennersten-2
In our community (Swedish) we embrace Wikidata wholeheartedly and we
have found solution to take care of vandalism. Literialist, show changes
on Wikidata on Wikipedia etc.

I believe it is more an attitude issue then a technical one.

I agree with earlier comments that English Wikipedia is not everything
and regarding use of Wikidata it  is not a leader

Anders


Den 2019-04-13 kl. 21:01, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:

> To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not
> yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more
> close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the
> record, I am administrator on both projects.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:31 PM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again)
>> Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can
>> share my work/your work on your wikipedia.
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Rebecca O'Neill
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I agree Galder!
>
> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
>

Dear Rebecca,
Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.

Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
themselves, the end goal.

So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
Foundation provides, exactly?

If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.

-- Phoebe
_______________________________________________
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

Edward Saperia
Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree Galder!
>>
>> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
>> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
>> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
>> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
>> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
>> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
>> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
>> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
>>
>
> Dear Rebecca,
> Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
>
> Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> themselves, the end goal.
>
> So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> Foundation provides, exactly?
>
> If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
>
> -- Phoebe
> _______________________________________________
> 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,
Yes there is a noticeable difference. Costs for changing websites,
stationary and the like are not budgeted for. Given that budgets do not
account for such nonsense it is not an "easy" test. It is also not a test
because when the test proves negative you double the cost.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 10:45, Ed Saperia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling
> itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any
> noticeable difference?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I agree Galder!
> >>
> >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> people
> >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not,
> in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all
> of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with
> an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation
> in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
> audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Fæ
In reply to this post by Edward Saperia
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
and reports as that entity.

Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
for which there are no reported credible tests.

If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
"Wikimedia".

Fae



On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any noticeable difference?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I agree Galder!
> >>
> >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
> >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe

--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Philippe Beaudette-4
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've been struggling to put
into words myself.  And like she, I would have been excited about this
brand change several years ago.  But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see
the need for that opportunity then.  I think that moment has passed.  I'm
not sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up
the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value
received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.

Best,
Philippe
(former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)



On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM 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)
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
In reply to this post by Fæ


I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
Foundation in the way you suggest.  To take the UK chapter, with you are
probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block
grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%.
When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
shove, you do what they tell you to.

JPS

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
> organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
> is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
> and reports as that entity.
>
> Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
> by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> for which there are no reported credible tests.
>
> If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> "Wikimedia".
>
> Fae
>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
> calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s
> any noticeable difference?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree Galder!
> > >>
> > >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> people
> > >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
> have
> > >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> very
> > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> editors.
> > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> that
> > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> chapters,
> > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> the
> > > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> > >
> > > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
> supporting
> > > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
> do
> > > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
> directly
> > > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
> group/
> > > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
> work
> > > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
> we
> > > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
> not, in
> > > themselves, the end goal.
> > >
> > > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
> all of
> > > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
> the
> > > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
> with an
> > > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the
> Wikipedia
> > > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > > Foundation provides, exactly?
> > >
> > > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase
> participation in
> > > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
> audience,
> > > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> > >
> > > -- Phoebe
>
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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

Peter Southwood
The members of the chapters are volunteers, so free to simply walk away any time they choose. Shove too hard and you have no chapter. Who wins?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals



I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
Foundation in the way you suggest.  To take the UK chapter, with you are
probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block
grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%.
When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
shove, you do what they tell you to.

JPS

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
> organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
> is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
> and reports as that entity.
>
> Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
> by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> for which there are no reported credible tests.
>
> If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> "Wikimedia".
>
> Fae
>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
> calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s
> any noticeable difference?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree Galder!
> > >>
> > >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> people
> > >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
> have
> > >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> very
> > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> editors.
> > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> that
> > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> chapters,
> > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> the
> > > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> > >
> > > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
> supporting
> > > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
> do
> > > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
> directly
> > > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
> group/
> > > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
> work
> > > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
> we
> > > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
> not, in
> > > themselves, the end goal.
> > >
> > > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
> all of
> > > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
> the
> > > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
> with an
> > > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the
> Wikipedia
> > > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > > Foundation provides, exactly?
> > >
> > > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase
> participation in
> > > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
> audience,
> > > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> > >
> > > -- Phoebe
>
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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
Also reminding that most of us who are members of national chapters are
volunteers at the projects, and many of us were in the projects for long
before joining a chapter or UG.

If the WMF spoils the chapters, we will find our way and do the same thing
we are doing for ages, advancing good quality knowledge free and open for
everyone, with or without WMF support. It is obviously better if we are all
in the same boat, but it's important to leave it clear that it is not a
fatality.

Regards,
Paulo

Peter Southwood <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
15/04/2019 à(s) 08:29:

> The members of the chapters are volunteers, so free to simply walk away
> any time they choose. Shove too hard and you have no chapter. Who wins?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jennifer Pryor-Summers
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 7:10 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals
>
> Fæ
>
> I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
> Foundation in the way you suggest.  To take the UK chapter, with you are
> probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block
> grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%.
> When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
> shove, you do what they tell you to.
>
> JPS
>
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
> > organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
> > is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
> > and reports as that entity.
> >
> > Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
> > by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> > decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> > changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> > some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> > verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> > vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> > which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> > for which there are no reported credible tests.
> >
> > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> > YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> > problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> > "Wikimedia".
> >
> > Fae
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
> > calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if
> there’s
> > any noticeable difference?
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I agree Galder!
> > > >>
> > > >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> > people
> > > >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
> > have
> > > >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> > > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> > very
> > > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> > editors.
> > > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are
> experienced
> > > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> > that
> > > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group
> I'm
> > > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> > ecosystem
> > > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> > chapters,
> > > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> > the
> > > > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > > > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> > > >
> > > > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > > > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > > > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
> > supporting
> > > > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
> > do
> > > > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > > > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and
> that
> > > > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
> > directly
> > > > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > > > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
> > group/
> > > > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
> > work
> > > > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
> > we
> > > > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
> > not, in
> > > > themselves, the end goal.
> > > >
> > > > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
> > all of
> > > > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
> > the
> > > > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > > > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> > need
> > > > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building
> free
> > > > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or
> "Wikipedia
> > > > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
> > with an
> > > > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings,
> perhaps
> > > > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach
> out,
> > and
> > > > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the
> > Wikipedia
> > > > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > > > Foundation provides, exactly?
> > > >
> > > > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase
> > participation in
> > > > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of
> the
> > > > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger
> > audience,
> > > > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard
> to
> > > > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of
> the
> > > > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > > > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> > > >
> > > > -- Phoebe
> >
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Luiz Augusto-2
In reply to this post by Fæ
Em dom, 14 de abr de 2019 09:54, Fæ <[hidden email]> escreveu:

> (...)
> If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> "Wikimedia".
> (...)

The real issue is the community not stopping the moron who changed a
colored logo historically associated to diversity into a tedious P&B
version and changed the WMF blog skin to a set of aggressive and repulsive
colors.

Not stopping a disease in their very initial stages have a price.

Listing comercial entities as competitors with WMF projects is the worse
thing I've forced to read on my life.

[[m:User:555]]
P.S.: the "m" portion on my signature is a interwiki, not my gender, if
someone don't knows
_______________________________________________
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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Luiz

>
> > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> > YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> > problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> > "Wikimedia".


Surely WMF projects are in competition with commercial entities, and very
successfully so?  Wikipedia vs Britannica and Encarta; Wikivoyage vs
Wiktravel; Wikinews vs Wikitribune; and so forth.  We celebrate those
projects successes ...

JPS
_______________________________________________
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
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.

Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia
segunda, 15/04/2019 à(s) 19:05:

> Luiz
>
> >
> > > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> > > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> > > YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> > > problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> > > "Wikimedia".
>
>
> Surely WMF projects are in competition with commercial entities, and very
> successfully so?  Wikipedia vs Britannica and Encarta; Wikivoyage vs
> Wiktravel; Wikinews vs Wikitribune; and so forth.  We celebrate those
> projects successes ...
>
> JPS
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Risker
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-4
I concur with Phoebe and Philippe as well.  I find this branding proposal
feels very dated; something that might have had currency several years ago,
but not really an advantage in the coming 10-15 years.  There aren't a lot
of organizations that change their names to reflect their most prominent
brand; if one looks at the most recent "big tech" renaming, we saw Google
move to Alphabet, actually divorcing themselves from their keystone brand.
I suspect that, had the foundation originally been named the "Wikipedia
Foundation", we might very well be looking to change the name to something
more generic (like "Wikimedia Foundation") today.  Given the longterm
strategic goal of being a broad and deep knowledge ecostructure, I think a
more generic name serves the movement better.

Much as I very much appreciate the time, energy and other resources that
have led to this proposal, there's not a lot of evidence of "value for
money" in proceeding, especially as a lot of the costs would devolve down
to affiliates that have much more pressing needs to meet with their limited
financial resources.  I won't enter into any discussion about whether
certain of our projects should be left by the wayside, but I will note that
there are significant variations in the "popularity" of various projects
between language groups as well as cultural groups.

Risker/Anne

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:28, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> As usual, Phoebe states very eloquently what I've been struggling to put
> into words myself.  And like she, I would have been excited about this
> brand change several years ago.  But we weren't ready / missed / didn't see
> the need for that opportunity then.  I think that moment has passed.  I'm
> not sure that the cost outlay and the time that it will take to clear up
> the confusion that a rebrand will cause is demonstrably worth the value
> received from it, for the reasons that Phoebe lays out below.
>
> Best,
> Philippe
> (former staff, still a volunteer, though of greatly reduced volume)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:42 AM 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)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
>
> Paulo
>

Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
questions it should be asking itself.

JPS
_______________________________________________
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

Yaroslav Blanter
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis
of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that
all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are
incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come
back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written
quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form
which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and
there is very little room for collaborative writing.

And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia
articles.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
>
> Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> questions it should be asking itself.
>
> JPS
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jennifer Pryor-Summers
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet
another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was
just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any)
proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with
one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese
version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project
at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made
in WikiNews.

Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head,
WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head,
some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As
many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia,
but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives
there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely
for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I
would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia
umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can
continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)

On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it.
Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee
how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is
solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between
Wikipedia and the other sister projects.

Best,
Paulo


Jennifer Pryor-Summers <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
>
> Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> questions it should be asking itself.
>
> JPS
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Eduardo Testart
In reply to this post by Yaroslav Blanter
Hi all,

I'll try to be brief. At an intuitive level I'm against implementing this
particular proposal: Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather
than Wikimedia. After reading this thread and having conversations related
to the subject with others this are my thoughts around it:

- Timing for reaching proposals: The proposals seems like things that
should arise from a strategy and not things that shape or embed on a
strategy. Taking this decision, or any decision as a matter of fact, before
a strategy is defined seems odd to me, independently of the strategy result
itself. To others in this thread, it also seems like an outdated proposal.
Shouldn't the strategy shed light onto these matters, and not the proposals
shed light upon the strategy?

- Implications: It seems that the subject of awareness is approached from a
linear perspective, just the perception of a brand (If I'm wrong I
apologize beforehand). Again, at an intuitive level, the costs and risks of
such an implementation seem huge: Some raised legal concerns, in some
particular countries or regions, some people could be more exposed, even
put in danger, being directly associated with Wikipedia, while under the
Wikimedia umbrella, those people might have some degree of separation that
also brings a layer of protection; Some raised costs concerns: Rebranding
could carry thousands of hours of work from volunteers, maybe a lot of the
material provided might need to be re-written, re-adjusted. Most of this
work seems that it would need to be carried out by volunteers; Will a
decision like this undermine the morale of the movement as a whole? And on
top of it, if we add a layer of financial costs, like changing agreements,
domains, banners, cards, printed material, videos, etc., a modification
based on this proposal seems like it has to be well thought out, and
definitely not improvise, before is taken into consideration, and again,
the same question than before comes to mind, that a decision like this, in
this particular moment, should come from the strategy and not the opposite.

- Coordination: To me, the lunch of the proposal also seems more like an
independent approach than a coordinated effort towards a higher goal, since
a strategy for the whole movement is being discussed at the same time, and
the proposals seem to entangle the discussion at some level, as proved at
least by this particular thread. I'm not trying to underestimate the
difficulties of coordination but to highlight that we should try our best
to be as coordinated as possible, our limited energy will be driven more
effectively, and if we do so, hopefully, we might generate a bigger impact
as a whole.

I believe that some proposals from the study are very valuable, I just
really don't think this is the right timing for proposing changes, that
timing has to do, at least at some level, with coordination (which should
never be underestimated as a difficult and consuming task), and that some
changes need to be analyzed from a multi-layered, and multi-location
perspective, to be able to make a decision as informed as we could be, and
risk or not into implementing changes based on that information.

If could make a suggestion, is to embrace all the information that came
from the study to enrich the discussion about strategy at large, but
refrain to implement any proposals until a wider strategy is defined.


Cheers,

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:37 AM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis
> of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that
> all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are
> incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come
> back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written
> quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form
> which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and
> there is very little room for collaborative writing.
>
> And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia
> articles.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> >
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> > questions it should be asking itself.
> >
> > JPS
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>



--
Eduardo Testart
(56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil
_______________________________________________
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