[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

Pharos-3
I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or
15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.

One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".

That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
stage in the evolution of our movement.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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>
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

FT2
I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about,
the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for
both problems.

One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is
little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem, because the
Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with
that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).

So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that
renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any
joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation
should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?

Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best
known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work
is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all,
other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's
shadow.  Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire
project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place
other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't
like that outcome at all.  Also it would be much harder to keep foundation
and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of
"blurring".  Those are real harms.

I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on
(and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.

How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The
WikiKnowledge Foundation"?


   - It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia,
   WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?)
   - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects
   - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and
   is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's
   clear what it means.
   - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a
   project with that name.
   - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so
   perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used.  As a domain, "
   wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.


If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki
learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation
for example.

FT2


On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or
> 15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.
>
> One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
> would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
> leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>
> That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
> perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
> now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
> rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
> stage in the evolution of our movement.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

FT2
In reply to this post by Pharos-3
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
> would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
> leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>

Yes. You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".

(And if you could, you'd exclude all other projects + scope from the
movement and erase the breadth that gives life to it. )

FT2
_______________________________________________
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
>
>
> You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
>
>
I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast
majority of the volunteers believe that they are.

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>
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

FT2
I don't think we get to make grand claims about what "the vast majority"
think, without some good basis for it.

More pragmatically, I suspect that most editors think of themselves as
Wikipedia/other project *editors*.  But those who truly think of themselves
as members of a *movement* - our GLAM volunteers, our regional/country
bodies, volunteers in outreach and universities, editors and others who
truly see themselves as members of a movement and not just editors of
knowledge - probably don't think of it in terms of "only limited to
Wikipedia", but in far broader terms - and if they don't, then we might
want to gently suggest that broader vision to them and not just concur that
it's limited in that way.


On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 07:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> >
> >
> > You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
> >
> >
> I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast
> majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
>
> 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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by FT2
Good arguments,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of FT2
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:54 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about,
the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for
both problems.

One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is
little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem, because the
Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with
that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).

So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that
renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any
joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation
should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?

Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best
known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work
is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all,
other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's
shadow.  Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire
project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place
other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't
like that outcome at all.  Also it would be much harder to keep foundation
and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of
"blurring".  Those are real harms.

I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on
(and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.

How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The
WikiKnowledge Foundation"?


   - It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia,
   WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?)
   - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects
   - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and
   is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's
   clear what it means.
   - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a
   project with that name.
   - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so
   perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used.  As a domain, "
   wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.


If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki
learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation
for example.

FT2


On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or
> 15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.
>
> One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
> would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
> leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>
> That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
> perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
> now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
> rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
> stage in the evolution of our movement.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Hoi,
So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
Thanks,
    GerardM

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 08:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> >
> >
> > You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
> >
> >
> I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast
> majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
>
> 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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Gerard

>
> So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
>
> I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.

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

jmh649
With respect to popularity per Alexa:

Wikipedia is 5th
Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies)
Wiktionary is 432
Wikibooks is 1,892
Wikisource is 2,790
Wikiquote is 3,953
Wikidata is 8,848
Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
Wikivoyage is 14,850
Wikinews is 60,829

There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
course would require consensus.

James

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard
>
> >
> > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
> >
> > I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that the
> majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
> Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
> view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
> minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
> that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
> the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
>
> 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>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________
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
James

Readership and writership -- to coin a phrase -- aren't the same thing.
English-language Wikipedia may be the fifth-most visited website in the
world, but it has major problems, for example, over a million un- or
badly-referenced articles, as revealed in a recent WMF Research paper and
blogpost.  English-language Wikinews may be at 60,829 (and so doing a lot
better than Wikitribune at 435,723) but it's still the case that its three
latest news stories are 2, 7 and 10 days old.  This is not the picture of
sites "doing fairly well".

JPS

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> With respect to popularity per Alexa:
>
> Wikipedia is 5th
> Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies)
> Wiktionary is 432
> Wikibooks is 1,892
> Wikisource is 2,790
> Wikiquote is 3,953
> Wikidata is 8,848
> Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
> Wikivoyage is 14,850
> Wikinews is 60,829
>
> There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
> well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
> sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
> to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
> course would require consensus.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gerard
> >
> > >
> > > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
> > >
> > > I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that
> the
> > majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
> > Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
> > view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> _______________________________________________
> 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

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by jmh649
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> With respect to popularity per Alexa:
>
> Wikipedia is 5th
> Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies)
> Wiktionary is 432
> Wikibooks is 1,892
> Wikisource is 2,790
> Wikiquote is 3,953
> Wikidata is 8,848
> Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
> Wikivoyage is 14,850
> Wikinews is 60,829
>
> There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
> well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
> sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
> to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
> course would require consensus.
>

hey what brilliant idea! i'd support merging wikinews into a something like
wikijournal. besides the more traditional ways like preprint server or
mail, i'd find it especially charming if one option of peer review is the
wiki-way, via "tag the quality and the type", maybe even allow different
groups to set such tags. and not (only) the wikinews way, or, ironically,
the nupedia way, where an editor decides "publish or not", and articles get
stuck into a "preprint", "private", "sandbox" namespace. is this something
which you think might work?

rupert
_______________________________________________
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 Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Jennifer,
So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a
minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it
does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate
is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to
provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?

As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
offer.

To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
majority preventing change.

Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
Thanks,
      GerardM



On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard
>
> >
> > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
> >
> > I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that the
> majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
> Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
> view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
> minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
> that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
> the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
>
> 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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Gerard,

I'm not advocating ignoring anyone.  Decisions have to be made and they
will be made by the Foundation.  The best decisions will be made when they
consult the community.  It may be that the decision that they eventually
take will be for a course of action supported by the majority, or it may be
for a course of action supported by a minority.  In neither case are they
being ignored.

You, like the rest of us, have the opportunity to present facts and
arguments to the WMF in support of the decision you favour.

JPS

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Jennifer,
> So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a
> minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it
> does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate
> is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to
> provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?
>
> As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
> you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
> to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
> the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
> where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
> will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
> Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
> offer.
>
> To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
> bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
> old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
> majority preventing change.
>
> Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gerard
> >
> > >
> > > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
> > >
> > > I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that
> the
> > majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
> > Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
> > view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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