Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/FAQ

I've been bold

Ich war mal so frei, und habe umseitig ein paar kleine Änderungen gemacht, in denen die aktuelle Situation völlig falsch dargestellt wurde. Es wurde so getan, als sei der Wechsel von WikiMedia zu WikiPedia bereits beschlossene Sache, obwohl die Community dies gerade völlig abgelehnt hat, dieses Wechsel also außer Frage ist. Natürlich kann und sollte das ein wenig umformuliert werden, aber es muss definitiv klar bleiben, dass dieser Namenswechsel nicht stattfinden wird ohne eine entsprechenden klare Zustimmung der Community in einem RfC. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is the front page again wrong?

On the front page her again stand the completely wrong things, as if the decision to use WikiPedia is already been made, nothing could be further from the truth. @ELappen (WMF): Why have you reverted this to some falsehood? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 FAQ

(Moving things here from the project page.)

Why do we need to update our brand system?

"This is a big growth opportunity for us to use the best-known brand we have to build movement growth." doesn't have anything to support it - at least, it's not clear how changing the identity of the foundation will grow the movement. I don't think that a lot of people come into the movement through the foundation. TomDotGov (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The brand system is being developed for movement organizations, not just for the Foundation. Outreach and onboarding newcomers is a primary function for most affiliates. The Foundation is the first point of contact for many media, potential partners and individuals. Most fundraising campaigns are organized by the Foundation, and these are occasions where our brand is presented to millions of people. All these stakeholders contribute indirectly to growth as well. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is is a good answer that should go into the FAQ, in the foundation's voice. I don't agree with it - I think it's misleading to raise money under the name 'Wikipedia' and then spend it on, say, Wikimania scholarships. But I think this is the best explanation of why the Foundation wants to rebrand I've seen so far. TomDotGov (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to make a pass early next week to incorporate a number of the things we're discussing in these different subsections. I'll ping you when that's done. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to do a pass myself - removing things that are overly speculative and trying to qualify Foundation statements that aren't qualified. I'll ask questions if I'm not sure, and feel free to revert and discuss. These conversations might be frank, but they are beginning to feel more productive. TomDotGov (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What issues could we face if we don't change the movement brand system?

The answer to this question shows a fairly major problem with this FAQ - namely, it ignores our massive success under the current branding. I'll use as one example of the three the bullet point "To serve the world, Wikimedia needs to reach billions of people". We already have developed a top ten website under the current 'Wikimedia' branding, and that's with the handicap of not submitting to China's censorship.

For the answer to be responsive to the question, it needs to kind of connect the issues to the proposed solution. Is there a reason to think that changing the foundation's branding would help us connect to a billion more people - say, more than advertising in those countries would? If so, what is it? TomDotGov (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia has been able to achieve massive success as a project in many parts of the world. But I doubt many people (if anyone) would argue that this success is due to Wikimedia branding specifically. Wikipedia has become its own highly-recognized brand while Wikimedia remains virtually unknown. Wikipedia’s recognition, in places where it is high, is an asset that can bring more attention to our movement as a whole. In places where Wikipedia’s recognition is not as high, simplifying the entry points into our movement around a central concept (with a successful track record) is still important to reach new people and invite them in. The idea is: harnessing the massive success that already exists could be beneficial to our entire ecosystem. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Again this fails to acknowledge the central weakness: "harness the success" does not imply "dilute the meaning of a brand". Among many brands, Nestlé has some very successful ones like w:Kit Kat, but that doesn't mean that they started using that name for w:Milkybar white chocolate, let alone for mints or pizza.

Will WMF ever start engaging with the actual arguments people are making, instead of its own strawmen? Nemo 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: The argument that using the Wikipedia name for the movement would dilute the brand (or, in more extreme terms, would “hijack” the brand unjustly and harm it) has been made many times. I don’t get the impression that this is the argument that @TomDotGov: is making, though.

Your argument has been engaged in a way that shows the many different perspectives about Wikipedia's reputation and what to do/what not to do with it (scroll up a bit to see the Reputation polarity map). This reflects the multiple arguments community members have made about reputation. Many people are concerned about reputation, for different reasons, although the "diluting"/"hijacking" concern is the most common. Any new ideas (to later become proposals to the community) are being evaluated on their ability to protect and improve reputation. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): In this one, I'm not really trying to make an argument at the moment, but more to try and refine the argument that the Foundation is making. I'd like the foundation's concerns to come out into the open so the community can explore ways of addressing them that the community is comfortable with. TomDotGov (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does this project continue to build on the idea of Wikipedia as a central concept when the majority of editors participating on Meta voiced concern about it and/or opposition to it?

There are several problems with this question and it's answer. The first is that "the majority of editors participating on Meta" minimizes the opposition in a way that is misleading. The opposition has been consistent in every forum that's been open to participation from a community that wasn't selected by the Foundation. That includes meta, wikimedia-l, and comments requested via email. Even the Foundation Board has expressed concerns. These concerns need to be addressed, and not minimized.

This answer does a terrible job of addressing them. "the Wikimedia Foundation leadership still believes that using Wikipedia as a central concept in the movement brand is key for achieving our strategic movement goals"... so what? If there is a good reason for the Foundation leadership believing this, what's that reason? I think when hundreds of volunteers organize to oppose a point, it deserves a response better than "We think we're right." TomDotGov (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The wording was intended to reflect the question as we are generally receiving it. Happy to tweak the wording of the question, but the tweak has to add clarity.

It is not true that the majority of editors participating in every venue voiced concern/opposition. It has not been true for the over 600 members of the Brand Network, which is open for anyone to join and is not “selected by the Foundation.” It was also not true in the brand workshops, where almost every community member who requested to attend was able to be scheduled for one, completely irrespective of their position on the project. Again, not “selected.” In the last round, it also wasn’t true for meetings in person or videoconferencing and, for example, I haven’t crunched the numbers because it wasn’t an official feedback channel, but it did not appear to be true for the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group during the last consultation either.

Adding Wikimedia-l to this copy is a fair representation, or the question could be tweaked to read something like “Why does this project continue to build on the ideas of Wikipedia as a central concept when so much concern and/or opposition was voiced around it?”

To your last point, editors voiced specific concerns about why using Wikipedia could be problematic. Those concerns are the guiding principles for the development happening now. It may be more clear to say that Foundation leadership believes the concerns voiced can still effectively be addressed in a system where Wikimedia is a concept, combined with other concepts and principles. This is why the process relies on the qualities of good movement branding, which were built from community concerns raised in the last consultation. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The first step of a conversation is to acknowledge that every indicator so far shows that the community is overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal, so yes, you need some rephrasing. Sure, there are pockets of discussion here and there where a more exclusive selection of participants has been warmer about the effort, because there's no doubt that those among us who've dealt with Wikimedia communication for a long while think branding is important and appreciate in principle that it's seen as something to look at, but these are not representative of the larger Wikimedia movement. Nemo 05:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that a better tweak to the question would be "Why does this project continue to consider using the Wikipedia name when so much opposition was voiced around it?" Alternatively, that might be a question in its own right, but it's one that's more important than the one that was answered.

As for the Foundation leadership, it's less a question of what they believe, and more important why they believe that. One of the qualities of good movement branding is "Branding should reduce confusion about the distinction between community and projects, clearly identifying what roles platform and volunteers and affiliates play in the movement." In fact, that's the first quality listed. While Foundation leadership might believe that the concerns might be addressed, I think that's a counterintuitive enough belief that it at least makes sense to explore the basis behind it. TomDotGov (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Again, open to rephrasing the question to make it clearer. I'd be fine with the move to @TomDotGov:'s suggestion, except that, as we talked about, the proposed solution during the naming convention phase of this process might not include the Wikipedia name specifically. So I would think that leaving "Wikipedia as a central concept" is more accurate.

Groups that are open to everyone to join and workshops that anyone can sign up for, in my book, don’t qualify as “exclusive selection of participants.” And sure, the brand workshop attendees, for example, don’t represent the movement. They are a sample of volunteers from different parts of the world involved in different capacities. Just like volunteers participating in the RfC are a sample. There has been significant opposition (vast majority) voiced to rebranding to Wikipedia in on-wiki and mailing list discussions, and this question should either reflect that or be broadened. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): I don't think that very many people are concerned with "Wikipedia as a central concept". People are concerned with the use of the name Wikipedia, as the Foundation has repeatedly communicated that the plan was to rename the Foundation using the Wikipedia name. (This month has been lasting forever, but I think it's a week or so ago that the slides conveying this were finally removed from the FAQ.) I think the single best thing the Foundation could do at the moment would be to report that, due to the community's feedback, the name Wikipedia is no longer under consideration, and that Snohetta has been told to stop considering the use of the Wikipedia name. Until that's done, the talk of concepts and systems only serves to distract from the community's concerns.

It's not that using the idea of a concept is inaccurate, it's that it's placing into the FAQ the answer to a question that hasn't been asked.

An RfC isn't a sample, any more than a presidential election is a sample. While novel means of gathering information are samples, the RfC is part of the dispute resolution process. TomDotGov (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does this process utilize off-wiki spaces for discussion and feedback gathering? How can feedback originating from these places be considered legitimate?

The answer for this question sort of misses an important distinction - the project isn't occurring on the existing facebook pages, but it's occurring on a novel closed facebook group, that isn't a community space that was created through a process. That's the decision that this project needs to justify - why create a new space off-platform, rather than using existing on-platform or off-platform spaces? TomDotGov (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why has the process included workshops in person? How were the attendees chosen?

[1] was reverted. I'd argue it's a valid addition, as at least one of the reasons for the FAQ is to help people determine the process that was conducted, and if that process was correct. In this case, we have a process where the Foundation promised one thing, that updates would be posted to mailing lists and wiki pages, and did something else. This is especially relevant because the process on traditional forums such as talk pages, mailing lists, and the RfC have yielded very different results than bespoke discussion forums like in-person workshops and the Brand Network. Insofar as the attendees at the workshops were chosen in a way that preselected for one outcome, that's important. TomDotGov (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

In der Tat, es gab die offenen und transparenten Diskussionen on-wiki und in den tradierten Mailinglisten, und es gab diese handverlesenen Workshops, in denen so etwas wie en:WP:Canvassing passierte, was auch nicht wirklich veröffentlicht wurde, vorher schon kaum, nachher nur das, was die Veranstalter preisgeben wollten (und was ihre Voreinstellung nicht störte). Dieser nicht-offene und intransparente Prozess sollte umseitig klar dargestellt und nicht unter den Teppich gekehrt werden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC).

I'd argue it is not a valid addition, since the FAQ ithout this edit is accurate, and this edit adds a misleading interpretation of events. The announcement being quoted in this edit is this one. The same paragraph being quoted starts with this sentence: "This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this consultation". These in person workshops were activities of the Brand Network, and this is why invitations were sent to Brand Network members (with extra outreach to other stakeholders for the reasons explained in the FAQ). This was the reasoning of the team, and it answers this FAQ.

The edit being discussed introduces a quote that says "all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki". However, an invitation to in person workshops is not a brand network discussion. Brand network discussions happened at the in person workshops, and reports were published about them. This edit insinuates that the team had an obligation to publish the invitation on Wikimedia-l and Meta-Wiki, which is misleading. Ultimately the point is whether the workshops were announced to their target audience, and this was done. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgil-WMF (talk) 15. Apr. 2020, 10:53:19 (UTC)

Die FAQ insinuiert, dass das ein offener Prozess gewesen sein, der somit andauernd und ständig offen und transparent stattfand, nicht nur innerhalb einer kleinen In-Group von Umbenennenwollern. Um ein tatsächlich valide, sprich offener und transparenter, Prozess sein zu können, hätten solche Einladungen, Zusammenfassungen und Bekanntmachungen zwingend on-wiki und in den traditionellen Mailinglisten erfolgen müssen, alles außerhalb dieser Venues ist per definitionem nicht offen und transparent. Es ist das, was im allgemeinen als "Windowdressing" bezeichnet wird. Es sollte in den FAQ klar dargestellt weden, das es keine tatsächlich validen Prozesse bisher gab. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be useful then to clarify how the "target audiences" were defined and what consequences those choices have on how to use the outcomes. It's fine for instance to have a group of cheerleaders for the WMF's preferred branding outcomes, but the opinion of such a group would need to be clearly understood as such. Nemo 10:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is "misleading" to state that the Brand Project team said one thing and did another - if anything misleading happened, it was last year. The idea of invitation-only workshops is one that, as far as I can tell, one that wasn't disclosed to the wider community, despite the quoted promise that it would be. I'm reasonably sure that if the plan for invitation-only workshops had been shared publicly, it would have been discussed - and probably rejected by the larger community, at least for the pay-to-play in-person events. (Or did the WMF pay for participant travel? I don't know, since the relevant update wasn't posted on-wiki.) Even if not, I suspect the discussions would have led to a more representative pool of participants. This edit puts "almost everyone who expressed interest in attending a workshop was able to be scheduled to attend one." into by explaining a limitation on the pool of people who could express interest, something that could help explain the differing outcome of the closed process.

Fundamentally, the last sentence of the paragraph in question "Furthermore, all important ideas and updates originating from the brand network discussion will be shared publicly to mailing lists and Meta-Wiki." did create an obligation - the price of having the novel private process described in the first sentence is keeping the accepted public process updated. If that wasn't the price, why would it be in that paragraph? Insofar as the Foundation project team committed to one thing in the email and did something else, that's relevant.

Nemo and Grüße vom Sänger make good points as well. TomDotGov (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of organizing a workshop is to make such workshop useful for the project. Participants of such workshop are supposed to be already engaged in the project because the workshop is a high engagement activity (say 4 days including travel, 2 of them being a productive group member and a contributor to the workshop almost full time). From the point of view of the project's success and the best use of the project budget, it only makes sense to send the invitations to the people who already have manifested interest in contributing to the project.

Ultimately this project is about proposing a brand system that movement organizations (affiliates and the Foundation) can use. Therefore the primary target for these workshops were affiliate members and Foundation staff. Specific outreach was done among affiliates of under-represented regions because growth in emerging markets is a strategic goal this project aims to support.

(Let me add that I personally find offensive the more than occasional insinuations about community participants in this project being "cheerleaders" or "proselytes". Crossing the line of Meta:Civility against the Foundation is bad, but I really wonder whether those who call other members of the movement these names realize how much they can hurt and how low they are falling). Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ja, das stimmt natürlich, es ergibt mehr Sinn, wenn bei einem Workshop alle die relativ gleichen Ziele haben und auf diese hinarbeiten. Leute, die grundsätzlich keinen Sinn in der Umbenennung sehen, was augenscheinlich die Mehrheit der Community ist, würden nur stören.

Wenn aber diese Ziele als solche noch längst nicht entschieden oder sie gar höchstumstritten sind, wie dies bei dem Umbenennungsprozess hier der Fall ist, dann kann es natürlich auch sein, dass der gesamte Workshop umsonst war, weil die Prämissen nicht gestimmt haben und die komplette Umbenennung nicht angegangen wird.

Aber die Diskussion, ob hier überhaupt ein Bedarf an irgendwelchem Rebranding besteht, ist nicht mal im Ansatz geklärt. Hier wird viel Geld für etwas ausgegeben, von dem viele nicht denken, dass es sinnvoll sei. Die Prämisse mit dem "Wikipedia als Zentrum der neuen Namenskonventionen" ist in jedem Fall gescheitert, alles Hirnschmalz, was unter dieser Prämisse aufgewendet wurde, wurde vergeblich aufgewendet, alles Geld, was dafür aufgewendet wurde, wurde de facto aus dem Fenster geworfen.

In jedem Fall müssen die Ergebnisse, so sie irgendeinen Einfluss auf die Entscheidungsfindung haben sollen, komplett veröffentlicht werden, eine Auswahl kann und darf höchstens von unparteiischen Dritten getroffen werden, nicht von Leuten, die da persönliche Interessen mit verbinden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll start with my reply with the what this page is about, specifically editing the contents of the FAQ. Right now, the answer to this question reads "Almost everyone who expressed interest in attending a workshop was able to be scheduled to attend one." The purpose of my edit was to balance this out by pointing out that there were very likely people who would have expressed interest, but didn't know the workshops were planned. Perhaps this FAQ entry would probably read better if it read something like your reply above - that the participants of the workshops were chosen specifically because they support the project's goals, and not to consult with the larger movement.

I think it's possible for everyone to be participating in good faith, and yet the process to be biased. Take a referendum where only supporters of an initiative are allowed to come to the polling place. That's a case where everyone that participates is doing so for honest motives, is making the decisions they consider to be the best, and yet because of the choice of who was allowed to participate the outcome is biased. Our traditional dispute resolution processes - on-wiki discussion, Requests for Comment, and mailing lists have been shown for a long time to produce positive results, probably because there is a built-in legitimacy to allowing everyone who wants to comment. It might hurt more since this discussion is taking place after the fact rather than before the workshops were conducted, but these are necessary conversations to have. (Though perhaps not necessary for this FAQ entry.)

I don't believe it's a violation of Meta:Civility to make clear that the Foundation has been prioritizing methods of participation that over-represent itself and other organizations that receive financial support from the foundation. If anything, I'd say that bringing up the civility policy to deflect criticism of the Wikimedia Foundation's past conduct and future plans is, in itself, uncivil. TomDotGov (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Addressing this

Hi. I'm directing this at the WMF staff who are involved with the rebranding project. To begin, it has been made clear to the community that the WMF intends to, in many instances, replace the word "Wikimedia" with the word "Wikipedia". I understand you have not yet decided all the instances where that will occur, hence the undecided "naming convention". However, you asked for feedback on this change. People, hundreds of people, 90% of the editors who participated, are against it, and the defense you use is that they misunderstood the question. They didn't misunderstand the question at all, and you cannot hide behind the pending "naming convention" stage. It was directly stated that the movement would be rebranded as Wikipedia, thus you implied a naming convention (by your selectively applicable definition) by stating that. Hell, the title of the page is "Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia". How is that not implying a "naming convention", that currently existing branding with "Wikimedia" would be changed to "Wikipedia"? Editors responded with their opinions, which you dismiss as implying a naming convention. It is implying one, not a specific one, but the general idea of replacing Wikimedia with Wikipedia, which is what the RfC was about. What sort of comment would fit your arbitrary standards? I'd wager nothing would, as it's evident that the staffers involved with this, if not higher levels in the WMF, have made their direction clear and intend to use the literary skills of WMF employees in writing corporate-style non-answers and veiled strawman arguments to get around community consensus. Considering the absolute nonsense written in the above-linked section, you'd characterize any opposition to the predetermined aims as being based on a misunderstanding of the question. I'll state it plainly: that's not going to work very well. The Wikimedia community has never responded well to having their opinion stifled. The RfC has shown that the majority of members in the community, which due to sample size and spread among projects can be assumed to be relatively representative of the entire Wikimedia community, oppose these changes. I do not care your opinions on whether these community members were discussing the same topic; the question was whether Wikimedia should rebrand itself as Wikipedia, and the community has responded with a resounding no. Continuance of these proposals while ignoring blatant community consensus is an unabashed and direct attack on community influence in the WMF. Further, your insinuation that the community's arguments were addressed in previous steps, and thereby negating later criticism, is utterly asinine for the community has expressed it's collective disagreement with the conclusions of those who previously addressed those arguments. The fact remains that the WMF created this RfC with the intention to continue on with the plan regardless of whether community consensus concurred with or opposed the ideas of the Brand Project Team. If that was untrue, I would not be here writing this message. I find myself frequently looking at two sides of the WMF: one which supports and actively works with community members, and one which merely pretends to. Vermont (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: One thing I want to address before anything else: the RfC was not created by the Foundation. It was created by a volunteer. The editors participating in the RfC did not, in my opinion, misunderstand the question–they understood the question and responded appropriately. The point is that the RfC’s central question is not indicative of the thinking at this point in the process. The project team hears it–people don’t want the Wikipedia Foundation or Wikipedia France or similar names. I can’t speak for outcomes because I am not a decisionmaker, but I can tell you I would be *extremely* surprised if Wikipedia Foundation/Wikipedia France were proposed to the communities as a solution after all of the discussion and feedback that has happened.

Another thing that I want to point out is that thinking has evolved as this project has advanced (as it was intended to, through feedback). Reading your comments underscores to me that the project team needs to do a better job communicating, more broadly, the way that thinking is evolving, and the way that opposition is contributing to that evolution. This project materials no longer talk about “replacing Wikimedia with Wikipedia”, because that’s now very clearly not what the outcome will be. Continuing to talk about it that way is indeed misleading. But, understandably, the fact that it was talked about in those terms before has led to questions being posed like “Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia?”

I find the way that Qgil-WMF clarified in this conversation to be helpful: “At the beginning, the "evolved brand system" using Wikipedia was mainly spoken and thought about in terms of a naming convention. Working with a company that are experts in branding and running several workshops and exercises with multiple stakeholders in the movement has brought the many possibilities to light.” Now, Wikipedia is envisioned as a concept, among many concepts and criteria, that are informing the thinking around naming and design proposals.

The concerns that have been raised so far are helping move this project forward and will allow for a better proposal to the community to be made and discussed in the coming months. I see a good amount of urgency in communicating this more effectively, and will be working on a way to do that. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): Thank you for your response. To better direct my comments, I've copied and pasted quotes from your response before my response to them.

"The point is that the RfC’s central question is not indicative of the thinking at this point in the process."

So, you've changed your thinking of the rebranding, and thus the central question. That is not just motivation to ignore the spirit of previous opposition. People overwhelmingly don't want a large change in branding focusing on Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia; however, if your intention is to use "Wikipedia" more often in branding material without removing "Wikimedia Foundation", then that's a simple change that probably doesn't even need a consultation or web of Meta-Wiki pages.

"...were proposed to the communities as a solution..."

By "communities", who do you refer to? User groups? Chapters? Neither of those accurately represent those who are legitimate parts of communities, and I would hope that the few individuals whose often fringe views are greatly over-represented in the various affiliates are not given permission to dictate "community" consensus as has been periodically done in the past. Or, when you say "proposed", do you intend "given"?

"...thinking has evolved as this project has advanced (as it was intended to, through feedback)."

It was not made clear that the project's aims have changed significantly. Further, it is expected to adapt this project immensely to meet the immense community opposition, but it is irresponsible to adapt this project slightly to justify ignoring community opposition. As your comments are extremely vague on what this will be, there is no way for any volunteer to be clear on what route this brand project will go, and so long as you keep it vague you have the ability to dismiss any opposition as not being aware of the actual project, for which supposedly no one is aware of the direction.

"This project materials no longer talk about “replacing Wikimedia with Wikipedia”, because that’s now very clearly not what the outcome will be."

Thank you. If possible, as there was a 90% opposition, could you try to make it more clear on the related pages how the community's immense opposition to the previous aims of this project have turned it away from those previous aims?

"Now, Wikipedia is envisioned as a concept, among many concepts and criteria, that are informing the thinking around naming and design proposals."

I couldn't possibly write a more vague sentence myself.

Despite the obligatory marketing nonsense inserted into your last paragraph, I am happy you took the time to respond to my concerns. By no means are they addressed, as this project is still so vague that, with the information available, it wouldn't be unreasonable to include issuing new hats to employees with "Wikipedia" written on them as within a hypothetical confidence interval for the result of this project, but it is helpful to know that the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the community have been taken into account in decisionmaking. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: Have a look at the project timeline, which outlines how the process will work. "Communities", in this context, means everyone. There are multiple movement-wide calls for feedback built in to the process. Naming convention proposals will be worked on and presented for community feedback next month. The same will happen for design proposals in June. Changes and refinement will happen based on the feedback before any proposal is finalized.

The aim has always been to create an evolved brand system for the movement. How or how much Wikipedia will factor into any proposals for that system is to be determined (this has been true since the beginning of the project, although perhaps not communicated clearly enough).

The vagueness is simply because the proposals don't exist yet. It wouldn't help for me to speculate about what will end up in the proposals. But when the first proposals (which will be for naming) are released for community feedback, we'll be able to have better discussions on these points. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Das RfC wurde in der Tat nicht von irgendwelchen bezahlten Angestellten veröffentlicht, sondern von der Community direkt, hat also per definitionem einen höheren Wert als bloße Auftragsarbeiten von Angestellten. Dieses RfC hat ein eindeutiges und klares Ergebnis: Es wird keinerlei Umbenennung von irgendwelchen Nicht-Wikipedia-Sachen zu Wikipedia-Irgendwas geben, der Name Wikipedia wird einzig und allein für die Projekte stehen, die tatsächlich auch Wikipedia sind. Irgendwelche Namensvorschläge, die das Wort Wikipedia für irgendeine Organisation enthalten, die nicht genau ein solches Projekt ist, dürfen nie zum Vorschlag kommen, das ist keine Option mehr.

Ich erwarte von denen, die dieses unter denkbar ungünstigen Umständen mit völlig absurden Prämissen gestartete Projekt weiter verfolgen eine klare und eindeutige Aussage, das das Wort Wikipedia bei den Namenskonventionen keinerlei Rolle spielen wird, alles andere wäre ein Faustschlag in das Gesicht der Community. | Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please follow the advice at Writing clearly and avoid corporate-speak and jargon like "funneled". Nemo 12:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Will it be confusing to use Wikipedia...

In the first version of this FAQ, written by the Foundation from back in November, included the question "Will it be confusing to use Wikipedia for things that are not an online encyclopedia project?". From then until 5 days ago, the answer to this question was "Yes, at first. That’s where we need your help to develop naming conventions that show how things relate. We need to make new names that reduce confusion and explain how things connect!" I'll note that both the question and the answer were provided by the Foundation. This was a good question that goes to the core of good movement branding.

On April 4, I noted that the second and third sentences simply postulate it might be possible to change that, and despite six months of community engagement, we're no closer to to a solution to this. And of course, the RfC report points out that '"Pedia" has a very specific meaning that does not apply to the other projects or to the Foundation.' So I simplified this to "Yes.", keeping the wording of the question the same as the Foundation added.

Yesterday, this was replaced with "Why does this project believe that using "Wikipedia" to refer not only to an online encyclopedia but all the movement won't be more confusing?" with the answer:

Branding is not literal, it is emotional. Facebook is not a book. Apple doesn’t sell fruit. Many (most?) users who use and love Wikipedia haven’t used an encyclopedia as much, if at all. Their emotional connection to “Wikipedia” as a brand is not literal, and it doesn’t need to be.

There are many ways to use Wikipedia, and the project aims to explore them. For instance, "the solar system" is used to refer to things that are not a sun (but orbit around the sun). "Linux" defined a kernel at the beginning and still today, but it became a powerful brand that goes far beyond the Linux kernel. These are just a couple of examples to illustrate the point, not hints at possible brand system proposals for our movement.

I don't believe that the changing this to a question about what the Foundation believes is a useful thing to do. I think that this is a question that can be answered directly - and has been, all the way back from November.

This is a terrible answer, since it's simply wrong in many places. Branding has a literal aspect to it - if we were to rename the Foundation to the "National Yogurt Manufacturer's Association", that would be wrong for literal reasons, not emotional ones. Every user that has used Wikipedia has used an encyclopedia, that encyclopedia being named "Wikipedia."

Fundamentally, though, the new answer doesn't address the question. The question is not if it is good branding (we have the criteria of good branding to talk about that), it asks if it is more confusing. And this answer does not not talk about if having something branded "Wikipedia" that is not an encyclopedia would be confusing - as the answer to this has always been a yes.

I'll revert the question and answer back to the November version while we come to a consensus. TomDotGov (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The new answer is terribly delusional. Sure, rhetorical devices exist and metonymy happens, but the question is whether they're proper here. Brand extension is a common matter of study and the WMF is not addressing any of the considerations usually embedded in such a process.

The examples provided are tragically irrelevant and show a poor or null knowledge of what the Wikimedia projects are about, as well as a scarce knowledge of our Mission. Wikimedia is about free knowledge in general; free culture is a much, much broader goal than individual content or software projects within it. "Linux" is mentioned as having extended beyond the kernel, but that doesn't at all compare with the kind of extension proposed here. What you are looking for is an example of a brand formerly used for one kind of food being expanded to sell all sorts of foods (for instance a chocolate or biscuit brand becoming the store brand for a range of hundreds or thousands of products).

I keep getting the impression that the proposers of this failed idea have not done their homework... Nemo 13:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand why a project team cannot update the answers of their project FAQ, why in practice it seems to be easier for editors not involved in the project (and in fact opposed to it) to get their edits kept. As I have mentioned in other occasions recently, I believe this is a problem that Meta as a community needs to resolve. Meanwhile, I think it is pointless to sustain this back-and-forth here. Specifically about this question, it is even more pointless to keep reverting each other before naming conventions are actually proposed. I'll leave a note mentioning that this answer is disputed with a link to this discussion. It is a fact that most people reading a project FAQ expect that it reflects the thinking and the voice of the project, and currently this is not what is happening here. Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Das Problem hier ist, dass ganz am Anfang eine Namenskonvention stand, die auch massiv von den (WMF)ern hier eingebracht und verteidigt wurde, es war zu Beginn dieses Unterfangens zu 100% klar, dass es eine Namensänderung zu Wikipedia geben sollte. Bis vor ein paar Wochen wurde das auch von Dir hier und umseitig so vehement verteidigt, indem beispielsweise die Grafik, die diese eindeutige und klare Prämisse formuliert hat, wieder umseitig eingebracht wurde. Auch die Benennung der off-site Website brandingwikipedia.org spricht eine klare und eindeutige Sprache. Erst die massive Intervention der Community in dieses klandestine Vorhaben der (WMF)er hat hier vor kurzem eine Änderung herbeigeführt. Ob diese Änderung tatsächlich Substanz hat, oder ob es nur ein Ablenkungsmanöver ist, ist für mich noch lange nicht klar.

Es gab noch nie eine Unterstützung der Community für dieses Vorhaben der Umbenennung, das ist eine Kopfgeburt einiger weniger Angestellter augenscheinlich mit eher wenig Communitykontakt. Dieses Wiki hier ist das Wiki der Community des Wikiversums, der Wikimedia Bewegung. Die von der Community bezahlten Angestellten, die für nicht viel mehr als das reibungslose Funktionieren der Webseiten da sein sollten, haben hier keine Sonderrechte, jedenfalls keine legitimen. Vorderseiten werden im Konsens der Community erstellt, sie gehören nicht der Projektgruppe. Die Projektgruppe hat nicht das Recht, auf der Vorderseite Dinge zu schreiben, die nicht im Mindesten der Realität entsprechen, nur weil sie in ihren POV so besser passen und diesen als Bias befördern.

Leute, die um ihren unbelegten POV umseitig einen EW führen, sollten gesperrt werden, auch wenn sie ein (WMF) hinter ihrem Namen führen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 14:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This project has participants from three sources, the Wikimedia Movement (specifically including the volunteer community), the Foundation, and Snøhetta. Like all other projects with participants of diverse backgrounds and opinions, we need to use community processes like discussing edits on talk pages to resolve our disputes. When about 90% of project participants express one position, that represents consensus, and edits against consensus are rarely kept.

Does anyone actually think that using Wikipedia would not increase confusion? (The Foundation answer was "Yes, at first.") If so, why? Or is this dispute entirely over process? TomDotGov (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: It's clear that Wikimedia processes, including those on Meta-Wiki, really aren't well-suited to projects belonging to a select group. This is because projects belonging to select groups are generally considered to be things that aren't acceptable to have. That's a pretty core element of how Wikimedia works. When one violates important principles but gets away with it due to (put bluntly) power, one shouldn't expect everything to work smoothly around it. I don't agree that this is a problem on the community's end. I hope this doesn't discourage the Communications department from participating in Wikimedia's spaces in general. I understand that it is rather more difficult than situations where you have a quiet line to receive inquiries and a megaphone to respond with. --Yair rand (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We have started this type of discussion several times in several places. It is not a discussion unique to this project, as it is applicable to any project run by anyone in Meta. For this discussion to be fruitful, there needs to be a common understanding on this key point:

Most readers assume that project pages capture the views of the team running the project unless stated otherwise. When that doesn't happen then confusion is likely to arise, and that is a problem.

For this discussion to be fruitful, there needs to be some trust on teams running projects willing to do the right thing, willing to find the best practices for this situation. And for this discussion to be fruitful it would be very useful to have the opinions of people with experience producing project documentation that are not conditioned by their affiliation with a project team or their opinions against a specific project.

I don't believe this discussion can be fruitful as long as we don't agree that there is a problem of confusing readers, that this team is trying to do the right thing, and that this is not the best place to have this discussion. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Who are "most readers"? Do you have a source for this statement?

I agree there might be a mismatch in expectations here. Pages can exist on Meta-Wiki with the mere purpose of self-promotion: for instance, essays exist only to propagate a certain idea; they are clearly marked as such. Some people however had understood the Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project pages to be an exercise in decision making, subject to the usual customs in Wikimedia decision-making. If usual expectations are not met, the outcome of the process will be perceived as illegitimate. If there is no decision to make here, and these pages have a different purpose, then it's better to make it clear soon, so that people can know how the decision-making process can be held accountable (if at all). Nemo 15:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable expectation that a team running a project can handle a Q&A page providing their perspective in their own words. If there are other perspectives and other words, there are ways to present them as well but distinguishing clearly what are the opinions of the team and what are other opinions. I find perplexing having to defend that teams in charge of projects exist, and they are in a different position than other individuals interested in the project but not part of the team. Also having to defend that as a project evolves questions and answers may evolve as well. And having to defend that when someone asks why this project managed by this team is doing X and not doing Y, the team should be able to reply with their knowledge and opinions.

For a comparison, the Board or the AffCom are also teams with well defined membership that are tasked with specific responsibilities and maintain pages in Meta. Technically the pages can be edited by anyone. In practice, it is understood that those teams are ultimately the ones managing their content, and whoever disagrees with them finds proper ways to express their views. I don't think the dynamics seen here of editing and reverting the changes published by the project team in project pages (an especially this Q&A page) would be accepted there. It would be very useful for all of us to have clear guidelines for this special project that is Meta but there doesn't seem to be any applying to this case. As I have written in other occasions, having more perspectives from people not emotionally invested in this project would be useful too. In the meantime, the dispute is still open. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've found that the Board is actually very good about making sure that any statements by the group are "in-quotes", so to speak. I've never seen them try to speak "in the project's voice" and lay exclusive claim to a page with an uneditable movement position. (Regarding other broader disagreements with the above comment, including issues of authority and transparency, I'm pretty sure they've already been covered.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Leider wird das hier von der kleinen Gruppe derjenigen, die gegen die Community die Umbenennung massiv betreiben, als Werbeplattform, auch mit falschen und fehlleitenden Aussagen missbraucht. Das fing mit den ersten Versionen an, in denen die Umbenennung zur Wikipedia Foundation als längst beschlossener Fakt dargestellt wurde, über völlig absurden Statistikmissbrauch bezüglich vorgeblicher Zustimmung seitens der Community, bis zum sehr povig dargestellten RfC, ohne das es überhaupt keine signifikante Communitybeteiligung gegeben hätte. Und selbst jetzt ist dieses kleine Grüppchen Umbenenner tatsächlich trotz eindeutigem Communityvotums so dreist, und stellt weiterhin Umbenennungen vor, die Wikipedia enthalten. In den FAQ wird u.a. von Dir versucht, auch mit völlig verzerrten und faktenfernen Darstellungen, Werbung für das Vorhaben dieser kleinen Gruppe Aktivisten zu betreiben, und jedwede kritische und wahrheitsgemäße Darstellung wird versucht zu hintertreiben.

Das hier ist nicht die Werbeplattform einer kleinen Gruppe Umbenenner, das hier ist das Wiki der Community. Wenn diese kleine Gruppe Umbenenner, in Zusammenarbeit mit den norwegischen Werbefuzziers, versucht hier ihr persönliches Süppchen zu kochen, um ihr Privatanliegen zu pushen, dann ist das nicht im Sinne dieser Seite hier. Auf dem absichtlich provokativ benannten Blog außerhalb der Community, auf dem diese Umbenennunmg mit handverlesenen Proselyten vorangetrieben wird, ist genug Platz für solche einseitigen Darstellungen, hier hat das nichts zu suchen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: I think it's clear that you have a position on how this page should be managed, but that position isn't supported by policy. I think it's getting to be uncivil to rehash that aspect of it. More importantly, the question reads "Will it be confusing to use Wikipedia for things that are not an online encyclopedia project?", and so far, nobody has made an argument that it does not increase confusion. So far, that hasn't been disputed, just avoided - despite being one of the central issues. TomDotGov (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: About "nobody has made an argument that it does not increase confusion", an answer was posted by the team and you reverted it. And this is a very good example of what this discussion is about. Can the project team post their answers to questions about the project or not? Qgil-WMF (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Das hier sind nicht die Werbeseiten der kleinen Gruppe Umbenennenwoller, die haben ihren eigenen Blog unter der bewusst fehlleitenden URL renamingwikipedia.org. Hier gehört keine ungefilterte Meinung der kleinen Gruppe hin, um die Community mit Fehldarstellungen und unsinnigem Werbegelaber in die Irre zu leiten, sondern hier gehört die ganze Geschichte hin, vor allem die Sachen, die genau nicht von dieser kleinen Gruppe bezahlter Werbeschreiber kommt, sondern aus der Community. Die bewust falschen Informationen zu Beginn dieses Unterfangens, deren Aufdeckung and Ablehnung, das klammheimliche Verstecken von Gegenschlägen gegen die selbstherrlichen Umbenenner, all das gehört auch auf die Vorderseite. Das Blog außerhalb des Wikiversums, dass die Umbenenner zusammen mit der Werbefirma Snøhätta betreiben, und auf dem nur handverlesene Leute der Community beitragen, reicht als Werbeplattform für diese kleine Gruppe vollkommen aus. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: The project team is welcome to post their answers. They can post it on the main page, and have them edited like anything else in mainspace, something that has been slowly improving those answers, like it does everything else. Or they can post it on the talk page, where it won't be edited, and instead will be replied to. What they can't do is to treat the FAQ as a place that isn't subject to the usual bold-revert-discuss cycle. If you want to defend the idea that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, this is the section to do it. I don't think the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is actually in dispute. TomDotGov (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Darstellung des RfC auf der Vorderseite

Auf der Vorderseite wurde gerade der Abschnitt über die Fortführung dieses Unterfangens trotz des eindeutigen RfC der Community dazu stark umgeschrieben, und wieder ein deutlicher, nicht so ganz mit der Realität in Einklang zu bringender, Spin eingebracht. Ich halte die alte Version für angemessener, in der aktuellen wird wieder so getan, als wäre vor dem RfC die Umbenennung keine beschlossene Sache gewesen, als wäre auch vorher hier eine offene Diskussion geführt worden, und als wäre die Community irgendwie beteiligt gewesen. Das ist alles nicht der Fall gewesen. Da ich aber den Widerwillen der Autoren mit einem (WMF) hintern dem Benutzernamen gegen Änderungen am Text, die nicht ihren gewünschten Spin haben, kenne, stelle ich das mal erst hier zur Diskussion und revertiere das nicht einfach. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The new answer is useful in a lot of ways, as it lets us know the thinking of the Foundation's Brand Project Team. I think it's almost always useful to have them speak in their own words. At the same time, since the FAQ is in main space, it needs to accurately represent what the RfC said and represents. (I'd suggest Qgil-WMF take a look at Nemo's last comment in the section above, which explains why this page can't simply be self-promotion by the FBPT.)

I've gone ahead and tried to merge the old and new answers to try and come up with a single answer that both captured what the RfC says and its standing and also captures the FBPT's position. TomDotGov (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ich sehe das Problem vor allem auch bei der völlig falschen historischen Darstellung. Dieses Projekt der Umbenennung war ein Projekt einiger weniger Funktionäre, und die hatten mit handverlesenen pro-forma-Communitymitgliedern entschiedene, dass es definitiv eine Umbenennung von Wikimedia nach Wikipedia geben wird. Dazu gab es auch sehr erhellende Präsentationen, in denen dies als längst beschlossener und kleiner weiteren Diskussion bedürftiger Fakt dargestellt wurde, es gab auch eine vollkommen absurde "Auswertung" von Community-Feedback, dem wenigen, was damals schon vorhanden war, und bei dem die Aussage durch entweder böswillige oder völlig idiotische "Berechnung" so hingedreht wurde, als ob da auch Zustimmung rauszulesen sein könnte. Auch diese völlig abstruse Darstellung wurde mit Händen und Füssen gegen die Realität verteidigt. Erst als es erstmals in Form dieses RfC eine tatsächliche Communitybeteiligung gab, und nun beim besten Willen nicht mehr zu leugnen war, dass dieses Vorhaben zum Scheitern verurteilt, haben die Verteidiger der Falschdarstellungen ein Einsehen gehabt und diese Dinge endlich angepasst. Jetzt soll diese Geschichte der Genese dieses absurden Umbenennungsvorhabens augenscheinlich möglichst schonend für die, die anfangs versucht haben, die Community zu hintergehen, dargestellt werden.

Ohne dieses RfC hätten diejenigen, die dieses Vorhaben an der Community vorbei heftig gepusht haben vermutlich weiter einfach ihren Stiefel ohne jede Rücksicht durchgezogen, bis es ähnlich wie bei SuperProtect oder FLOW im Desaster geendet wäre. Erst das RfC hat adzu geführt, dass ernstghaft versucht wurde, die Community einzubinden. Es gab zwar noch immer diese Off-Wiki Privatseiten der norwegischen Werbefuzzies, die von manchen wohl tatsächlich als Communitybeteiligung angesehen werden. Wie jemand auf den Gedanken kommen kann, dieses absurde Zeug wäre Communitybeteiligung, kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Allein der Name war schon eine extreme Provokation und sollte augenscheinlich die von den abgehobenen Funktionären gewünschte Richtung vorgeben: brandingwikipedia.org, schlimmer hätte die Seite kaum benannt werden können. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This specific question is addressed to the Brand team, who are the ones proceeding with the project. We get this question many times in many places, and we want to document our answer so it is clear for everyone. The current version incorporates some of the background that TomDotGov had added. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any place where the question is addressed to the Foundation's brand project team. It seems to be addressed to everyone participating in the project, as this is a page in main space. It is important that the answer not mischaracterize what an RfC is and the consensus this RfC is achieving - as discussed above, a main space page needs to be accurate.

I've tried to edit the answer to keep the Foundation's response as intact as possible. I did that by sort of factoring out the description of the RfC, correcting that, and then trying to keep the Foundation's answer as intact as possible. The question posted by the RfC was short enough that it isn't necessary to try to rephrase it, as the recent edit does - the RfC didn't (at a high level) discuss direct substitutions or "naming solutions" in those words, so out they went. Below that, I tried to keep the Foundation's response intact, simply adding "Foundation" to indicate that this is the Foundation position, and not that of the community that partipates in this project.

A FAQ isn't really a good place to document the answer of a portion of this project, as there's a sort of implied promise that an on-wiki FAQ has achieved consensus, or at least will be brought into consensus by the wiki process. If the Foundation's project team wants to document their position, a talk page might be a good place to do it, and so might be a blog like brandingwikipedia.org. TomDotGov (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Der Platz, auf dem das Brand Team der WMF (definitiv nicht das Brand Team des Movements) ist, wie TomDotGov schon sagte, ihr eigene Blog unter der extrem provokativen URL brandingwikipedia.org. Das hier ist nicht das Privatwiki dieser kleinen Gruppe, sondern das Wiki der gesamten Community. Hier hat nicht die Binnensicht dieser kleinen Gruppe dargestellt zu werden, sondern ein Überblick über das Gesamtgeschehen.

Aktuell hat Qgil-WMF wieder den POV der kleinen Gruppe dort hingeschrieben, und die gesamte Geschichte für diese Gruppe in ein arg geschöntes Licht gestellt. Bis zu dem RfC war es eine abgemachte Sache, dass die Wikimedia umbenannt wird, das wird ja auch an dem provokanten Namen des Privatblogs der Gruppe mit den Werbefuzzies deutlich. Erst das massive Auftreten der Community, und die eindeutige Ablehnung dieses Vorhabens durch die Community, hat bei den Mitgliedern der Gruppe zumindest oberflächlich das Nachdenken gestartet, und die Realisation, das sie sich sehr weit von der Community entfernt hatten mit ihrem unabgestimmten Vorhaben. Jetzt wird so getan, als sei das schon immer ein ergebnisoffener Prozess gewesen, das ist natürlich völlig falsch. Und genau dieser Einschnitt, der Aufschlag der Realität in dem Wolkenkuckucksheim des Umbenennergrüppchens, das plötzliche tatsächliche Interesse an der Community, nicht nur an handverlesenen Proselyten, all das wäre ohne das RfC nie passiert. Das Vorhaben wäre ohne Communitybeteiligung einfach durchgezogen worden, und hinterher hätten sich (mal wieder) alle gewundert, warum denn die Community dieses Vorhaben so überhaupt nicht akzeptiert. Ob es dann wie Flow in der Versenkung verschwunden wäre, oder wie bei SuperPutsch ein neuer Krieg gegen die Communites vom Zaun gebrochen worden wäre, ist natürlich reine Spekulation. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Seitdem die kleine Gruppe von Umbenennenwollern ihre drei quasi identischen Vorschläge zur Umbenennung präsentiert hat, gab es bei dem RfC zahlreiche neue Unterschriften gegen dieses einsame und völlig absurde Unterfangen. Auch bei allen anderen echten Communitybeteiligungen (Straw Poll und Open Letter) gab es eigentlich nur negatives Feedback zu diesen Vorschlägen. Aber die kleine Gruppe von Umbenennenwollern besteht augenscheinlich auf ihrem unerwünschten Vorhaben. Wie ist das zu erklären? Wie kann mensch sich derart komplett der Realität verweigern? Bzw: Warum wollen die wenigen Leute dieser kleinen Gruppe ihr Vorhaben unbedingt gegen die gesamte Community durchziehen? Ich begreife das nicht, was sind deren Beweggründe? Es ist einfach zu absurd, um das irgendwie nachvollziehen zu können. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Generelle Darstellung auf der Vorderseite

Meine Änderungen auf der Vorderseite, die die aktuell sehr einseitige und verfälschende Darstellung der Entwicklung dieses Umbenennungsvorhabens seitens einer kleinen Gruppe innerhalb der Foundation ein wenig korrigiert hatten, wurden gerade zurückgesetzt, die POV-Version mit den Falschdarstellungen wiederhergestellt. Ich habe zunächst einen Warnhinweis oben angebracht, der auf diesen Zustand der sehr einseitigen und teilweise grob verfälschenden Darstellung der Entwicklung dieses Umbenennenvorhabens hinweist. Lieber wäre es mir allerdings, die FAQ würden die tatsächlichen Entwicklungen wahrheitsgemäß darstellen, also die bis zum RfC eindeutig feststehende Umbenennung hin zur WikiPedia, ohne wenn und aber, die est durch das RfC ein wenig aufgebrochen wurde, jetzt mit den angekünndiggten Vorschlägen aber offensichtlich doch wieder genau so durchgezogen werden soll. Die Ignoranz gegenüber dem klar ausgedrückten Communitywillen seitens derjenigen, die hier unbedingt die Umbenennung wollen, die bisher so gut wie nicht stattgefunden habende tatsächlich ergebnisoffene Communitybeteiligung, die handverlesenen und nichts repräsentierenden "Workshops", die als Alibi für eine solche vorgebliche Beteiligung herhalten sollen, der gesamte Bias, der hier vehement seitens der kleinen Gruppe (WMF)er gegen die Community verbreitet wird, al das findet umseitig überhaupt nicht statt, ist aber zentral in der Darstellung der Entwicklung dieses Umbenennungsvorhabens. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi. Is there a mistake/missing word in the current last sentence of this page ("While the opt-in nature of the rebranding means that the affiliates can determine of money is spent on affiliate rebranding, both projects and affiliates will have to update references to the Foundation.")? If not, please could someone explain to me more precisely what it means? Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As the whole FAQ are just a biased and distorted version of the real history of this enterprise, I don't think anything there is of any value at all, nothing there makes real sense, all is just new-speak to promote the project of the small group of renamers. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joalpe: Thanks for this. This particular FAQ was not written by the Brand Project team. I know that many volunteers come here looking for the Foundation's official position on something, so it has been causing a lot of confusion when explicit opponents to the project write their own answers or constantly edit/revert what we have written (I get confused messages from community members regularly about this). Rebranding for affiliates is completely opt-in, it will be based on whatever works best for them. If the brand proposal is approved by the Board, the Foundation will adopt it, so references to the Foundation across the movement will be updated in their own time. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:TomDotGov, author of this sentence. --Yair rand (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This was a commonly asked question at the RfC. I apparently made the typo of writing "of" instead of "if". I've corrected the and I hope it reads more clearly. I'd welcome the foundation's input on the correct answer to this question, as it's one of the most frequently asked questions in this discussion. TomDotGov (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedian User Group

Hi,

I feel a bunch of people really want to focus on Wikipedia and don't care to exclude the sister projects of the communication and support by the WMF. I agree it isn't the majority of the WMF, but I feel it's the majority of the people that promote the 2030 brand project (#notallwikimedians). I am open to imagine they don't think themselves as such, but it is still how I feel they are acting. But well, my question is not about my feelings, there is no space for it inhere, I learned that from the RfC. I want to add a new constructive question to this FAQ and I'll be glad to hear some thoughts by any person involve in the ongoing brand disorganization process.

• Could you consider through the six criteria the creation of a Wikipedia User Group as a possible answer to the established problem?

There is already groups for several projects, but not for Wikipedia (#checkyourprivileges). I think that may be a way to decrease the confusion between the goals of the WMF and the goals of Wikipedians and to reinforce the relation between the umbrella organization and each project communities, via umbrella by-project spaces for organization. Noé (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Reuse of Wikimedia Foundation by a separated organization

Well, I also have a second question:

• After the abandon of the name, would it be legally possible to create a new external Wikimedia Foundation for the orphan sisters?

It could be very useful for the user groups that focus on one project and include peoples that never consider themselves as Wikipedians but rather as Wikidatians, Wiktionarians, Wikisourcerers and so on. Some of those may choose to opt-out of a Wikipedia-centered organization for a more equitable and horizontal umbrella, and may like a familiar and convenient name such as Wikimedia Foundation. Is it possible? I don't want answers by people pro or against this hypothetical strategy, or on the feasibility of it. I just want an answer on the legality of the usage of the name. Then we may discuss this strategy in the right place and timing. Noé (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Old brands are always kept and are used from time to time just to prevent such scenarios. Bahnmoeller (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We are at war

not against Corona, but against the foundation. The proposal was rejected [2] and now we get a questionare without any "no" option. People are asking if Donald would accept a vote against him. The foundation does not even allow to vote. We are succesfull despite the foundation and their silly actions like "image filter", "Framban", superprotect, 2030, enfored diversity... Bahnmoeller (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The Essay template

The "Essay" template recently added was not created for a page like this one. I removed it, got reverted. I have mentioned this case at Request for help mediating in contentious edits. Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: Hello. What template do you think would be more appropriate? Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the FAQ is its heavy bias inflicted by the foundation project team, it doesn't adhere with normal NPOV-norms in the project. I see two possibilities: Either the FAQ stay as they are, then it has to be made clear, that it's just a heavy disputed version of the reality from the perspective of the small group of renamers. Or it should be made more coherent with NPOV, thus not only the perspective of the small group should be included, but the perspective of the community as well. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me this is not an essay. Essays are things which might not reflect the general consensus, but they are hardly the only type of page that might not. Bawolff (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. If there is consensus to add a notice at the top of the page mentioning that the statements in the FAQ contradict the views of many members of the volunteer community, we can do so, though a discussion should be held prior to adding one. The essay template, however, is highly misleading in that this is by no means an essay; it's an active project of the WMF. Vermont (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I can accept this. My thoughts was that the Essay template said that better than the bespoke templates that were on here before, as it's translated into more languages. I do think that it's important to make it clear that the FAQ answers have not achieved consensus. TomDotGov (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What about this:

• The first priority is that the FAQ addresses frequently asked questions about the project according to the project team's information and understanding. This way nobody expecting to find the information and opinions of the project team is confused, regardless of whether they agree or disagree on the content.
• If someone believes any text in the FAQ can be improved (because something is missing, it is outdated, incomplete, confusing, biased, you name it) the recommendation is to just go ahead for minor changes and propose major changes in the Talk page. This is not an uncommon expectation in project pages either.
• If there is agreement, the content is edited as agreed business as usual.
• If there is no agreement, a note is added to the specific section pointing to the related discussion.
• No page notice is needed if there is agreement, or there are discussions open and progressing. However, if at some point there is no other option than to agree to disagree, then we stick a notice clarifying the situation.

This FAQ needs a good update after the last events anyway. Many questions listed are barely relevant today compared to many questions asked frequently in the past days that we still haven't added. Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I do think that this FAQ is massively out of date, and could probably use a lot of improvement.

I'm of a split mind on this. On the one hand, I really do think that there should be a way to get the Foundation project team's out here. At the same time, it's really important to understand that, since the start of the project, the Foundation's point of view has been a minority one, and since the reveal the other day, it's become a very minority point of view. So it's like having a FAQ about Homeopathy as the way of conveying the homeopathic perspective - I think that having the perspectives are useful, but I think it would be a bit unfair to present them without context.

I wonder if the right approach is to first agree on the question itself, have a talk page discussion that starts with a Foundation post, and then goes there to see if we can achieve consensus. Some questions - like the one about the project cost - seem like we'd achieve consensus directly. Other ones, like the question about "Will it be confusing to use Wikipedia for things that are not an online encyclopedia project?", probably don't lend themselves to a single answer.

I've always been worried about the Foundation project team using this FAQ to game discussion that needs to be had, by using it as a way to get your perspective out without having to have it questioned. I honestly wonder if the team had engaged with the RfC rather than producing this FAQ, the RfC discussion would have been less one-sided. I hope that the members of the Foundation project team can recognize that their approach of talking at the community (with things like youtube presentations, executive statements, FAQs like this) rather than to the community is really hurting their side of this project. I'd love to have an honest discussion of why the Foundation thinks that Wikipedia doesn't increase confusion, and we've never gotten to have that.

I'm not particularly committed to this approach, by any means - I'm just thinking on the page here, trying to make apparent my concerns. TomDotGov (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The essay template is a tool to a purpose. The purpose is that whoever reads the page understands who's speaking, otherwise whatever the page says may qualify as propaganda in a bad sense (per Jowett). I would be fine with having quotations, for instance «Quim Gil, in his capacity as $role, based on his understanding of information received from $authority, stated on $date that "$untouchableWords"».

At the moment it's clear that nobody is speaking for the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole: lower staff says one thing, higher staff another, board members yet another, other parts of the org don't seem to know anything. At some point one hopes that order will be restored, there will be some kind of functioning organisation again and the decisions and processes of the Foundation will be transparent so that everyone can agree at least on the ground facts, but at the moment we're very very far from such a situation so we must at least avoid to deceive people. Nemo 07:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I just tried another pre-fab template, Template:POV, I think it fits, as the FAQ mainly represent the POV of the small group of renaming enthusiasts, and definitely not the community. If anyone knows a better template, or wants to create a hand-crafted special box on top, that states, that the FAQ are disputed and contain a heavy bias, feel free to do so, but there has to be some warning, that this is not a neutral FAQ bur a biased one. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The main complaint is about the neutrality of this page, and therefore this is the main warning readers must understand. This is why I have changed the banner with the type of wording used for these situations. From here we can start working improving this page, which the team plans to do starting tomorrow. It is not a bad idea to use attribution in cases where there is no other way to reflect a neutral point of view. Accuracy in attribution applies to everyone, not only to the information or opinions attributed to the Foundation. About "personal opinions" I think this concept is even more misleading in the case of this page. Most of the edits made by staff members are reviewed internally and reflect the opinions of the team. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I gave it a minor copy-edit, and I'm fine with this wording. I hope that the Foundation project team can work to improve neutrality as per Nemo's comment's above. TomDotGov (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks good Qgil, thank you.

I don't think it would be difficult to rewrite both questions and answers in a neutral way, but I also don't feel comfortable doing that myself -- perhaps no one feels comfortable doing it! The difficult questions are all around renaming WMF to the "Wikipedia * Foundation". Staff may feel obligated not to write directly about that; and not to write explicitly about the explicit conflict here between past community and foundation statements. Community members may not want to edit the words of someone officially working on the brand project, on a brand project page.

A neutral presentation would highlight disagreement and unresolved confusion about a) assumptions, b) what research has shown, c) how effective and appropriate research has been, d) assumed need (from a reach/other perspective), e) expected impact (on reach/other), f) risks to identity, g) risks of internal confusion, h) what firm decisions have already been made, i) how future decisions will be made. And would identify those few areas where community and foundation have staked out firm positions that are not currently reconciled. –SJ talk  16:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Now that the discussion about the banner seems to be settled, let's see how we can agree on removing it.  :) Suggestions to start the work:

• Agree that neutral questions help neutral answers.
• Focus on actual questions asked frequently.
• Identify relevant missing questions.
• Identify not relevant questions to be removed or moved to this Talk page.
• Identify questions / answers that are considered not neutral.

We can draft questions / answers based on your feedback here and on the activity in the other pages and channels. There is quite a bit to process right now, but the points above may help prioritizing. If between all of us we get a bit of diversity of perspectives, the feedback loop may be fast and rich, and perhaps we make some progress quickly. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

[I removed a comment i previously made here that had a non-productive tone]. I think for starters, its unclear the precise answers to a lot of these questions. I think a major part of the issue is many of the answers on this FAQ do not seem to be consistent with other statements made by members of the branding initiative and foundation leadership. Its hard to pin down what a neutral answer would be, when i can't even pin down what the WMF's position actually is. Bawolff (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Bawolff. The Brand team should be able to explain what the Foundation's current position on specific questions is. We also should be able to update answers if/when the position evolves or changes, a situation that can be expected in most projects, and it is clearly expected here. Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Qgil-WMF Perhaps you could use a page with a title like "/WMF position statement"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It will help a lot if claims of fact are backed up with evidence, and opinions are specified as such, and where not obvious, attributed to the person or group holding that opinion. The default should be assumed that without verifiable evidence or attribution, a statement will be considered the personal opinion of the person who posts it, no more, and no less.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The FAQ page has been updated with a general pass made by the Brand team. The Naming FAQ has been merged here, and later today we will process or move here feedback and anything else remaining. Some Q&A have been removed either because they had been especially contentious or because they were not relevant anymore.

Some other have been updated although (important detail!) most of these updates were made before the publication of the Open Letter, and this is why the letter itself and effects of it are not reflected yet. This has been a reason to hesitate to update the FAQ in the past days. At the end we have preferred to update the FAQ with the materials we had ready anyway (Tito's email to wikimedia-l helped here) and then we will keep updating as events develop.

We understand there is a lot to process with these changes. We welcome your feedback with specific suggestions of improvement in specific sections, so we all can identify what are the biggest problems and patterns to solve. Thank you for your feedback about possible alternatives. I'd say that we can leave the weekend for additional feedback if any, and then decide next steps. Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've started a series of discussions intended to improve the neutrality of this FAQ, and flagged the relevant sections as disputed.

Qgil-WMF, I think you missed the point of Tito's message to wikimedia-l - it was a criticism of how the FAQ has been deeplinked as a way of avoiding answering questions directly. That's why I added the disputed disclaimer to each section directly - deep linking like as was done in [3] will miss the disclaimer at the top of the FAQ. TomDotGov (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is there not a single proposal, that respects the RfC?

That's a crucial question for the FAQ, one that's not been answered yet. I can't come up with an answer, as I really can't imagine any answer to this complete disrespect by the project group towards the community. The question definitely belongs on the other side. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is Why do all the options include Wikipedia? and Why is this project moving forward after the RfC resulted in clear majority opposition?, which answer your question. Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The RfC part is again the very selective wishful-thinking-reading of the renaming enthusiast, against the clear outcome of the RfC, that anything but a complete ditch of the name WikiPedia for the non-Wikipedia entity Foundation is acceptable. The so-called report is nothing but a poor rationalising not to take the community serious, and how to go mon with the private mission of the small renamer group withou outside disturbance. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW: Since the useless survey about the three identical proposaly was started, the RfC got a new push, it's now 486:43, the community consensus against the very small group of renamers is getting ever clearer. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC

And if you look at the traction, the new real community involvements (not those handpicked few, that took part in workshops heavily dominated by renaming enthusiasts, probably even without the option for a status quo) straw poll and open letter, you get as well a good impression of the community intentions in opposition to the intentions of the very small group of renamers. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's see. The FAQ says "The rebrand based on Wikipedia was reviewed by the Board in 2018, and in 2020 the Board affirmed support for the project and instructed the team to complete it by Wikipedia’s 20th birthday." which explains why Wikipedia based options appear on the survey in contrast with the majority of opinions captured by the RfC. Why does the survey not ask us to compare these proposals directly to current Wikimedia branding? is related to this question as well. I mean, this FAQ should clarify reasons and decisions made but it alone cannot solve disagreement about these reasons and decisions. Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you please post the complete wording of the relevant board decisions, that you say determined the use of Wikipedia as the one and only option? And how was that vetted by the most superior entity here, the community? I can't see any such restrictions to this one and only name anywhere in the board decisions, but this severe und unwarranted decision was the base for all the unwanted stuff, you got engaged in. Why did you think, this was really something wanted? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And could you please explain, why only Wikipedia based proposals are in the survey? Not a single proposal respects the community, all are against the community wishes. Why should anybody take part in this extremely biased and thus useless survey, if it's clear from the beginning, that the project team doesn't want any input that is not 100% confirm with their already made choices? They will probably again simply ignore the community, like with this identical proposals. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are 3 nearly identical proposals presented?

The, I really hesitate to say three, proposals for the renaming are essentially just one with minor and irrelevant differences. They are marketed as three different proposals, but they are not. All end up with a Wikipedia Foundation, two with some irrelevant cosmetical third word. They are no choice, they are the same. I fail to see any need for any survey to look for these irrelevant nitpicking non-differences. Why isnn't there some real choice, some real difference anywhere? Why is it exactly like the "solution" presented by the very small group of renaming enthousiast before the alibi community non-participation was done? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is Were there other naming convention proposals that did not end up in the survey? Why were they eliminated? and Why do all the options include Wikipedia?, which explain why the Wikipedia part is common and why other initial possibilities had to be discarded. Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's some useless corporate-speak nonsense, that tries to hide the fact, that all proposals are identical. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I was trying again to sustain a conversation. It is very difficult to elevate any conversation with comments like this one. It is very difficult to continue responding as if nothing happens. I have left a longer comment in your Talk page. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And the main alternative: Keep the well established name and don't start the confusion of the foundation with on single project was never really evaluated. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me about this proverb: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black". That's the gist of the presented proposals by the very small group of renamers. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 14:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: I'm not 100% sure what the purpose of this Talk page section is, other than as a way to vent your frustration at a talk page update that reduced the neutrality of a page that we've been working together on for months. Are you suggesting that "Why are 3 nearly identical proposals presented?" should be a question in the FAQ? While I think it's a reasonable thing to consider, I'm not sure that it's necessarily distinct from "Why do all the options include Wikipedia?"

<squeeze> I think the question "Why do all the options include Wikipedia?" is misleading as well. It's not, that all options include Wikipedia, all options are Wikipedia. The differences between the proposals are so small and irrelevant, they can completely be ignored. The proposals are not nearly identical, they are nearly completely identical. It's black, black, or black, or 3 Shades of Grey. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to my criticisms of "Why do all the options include Wikipedia?" yet. I think there are many, like using an old statement from Eric Möller when a newer comment points out that a rebrand would "increase, not decrease, confusion and frustration for those who join the movement". That being said, I think that this is something we can and should address in the existing question.

@Qgil-WMF: I think that you've been using your sense of frustration with Sänger to avoid having necessary conversations about what the FAQ should say - conversations that are more urgent after recent updates that, from the community perspective, reduce its neutrality. I think it's been settled that the community has a role in assessing the neutrality of the page, and what level of warnings should be placed. I'd suggest that the more you (the Foundation brand project team) engage with the community, the less frustration you will cause, and the more productive conversations will be.

I have to admit that I'm quite frustrated at having a large set of changes dumped all at once, which means that we might have to have dozens of conversations at once - and on the weekend, which means that the Foundation team may not be around to have those conversations. That leaves us in the awkward position of having the FAQ (from the community perspective) inaccurate for days, or editing the page directly. TomDotGov (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

TomDotGov we are as interested as you about having the necessary conversations about what the FAQ should say. Answering complex FAQs is way simpler and way more motivating than reporting a volunteer publicly (which I do as a last resort). Last Sunday I invited everyone to share their feedback about next steps and the invitation remains. It is a measurable fact that Elena or myself would edit and comment in this FAQ more, more often, and more openly and flexibly if almost every post we publish wouldn't generate a response within minutes that a) doesn't bring new information or new opinions to the conversation and b) most of the times is disrespectful to the extent of killing the chances of a constructive conversation. I believe none of you would accept such behavior in your hobbies or your paid jobs, and here we have to expect it by one person on a regular basis. Still, this FAQ is important and we will do our best to work with everyone and get them right. Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: I believe that I have done a lot of work to identify questions and answers that I find non-neutral, and we're talking about this and not them. I've honestly made edits in the past I considered borderline disrespectful because clicking undo was the only way to bring the Foundation project team back to the talk page. I consider that a problem, but I don't know a good way to solve it. While I do wish that the FAQ had been updated more slowly, and changes discussed on the talk page before going live, we are where we are and we can discuss them now.

I think respect is a two way street. As I mentioned above, there's a feeling that the Foundation is using mainspace on meta to game conversations. Pointing to a FAQ entry (that doesn't have consensus) instead of discussing things on talk, pointing to a report (that misrepresents facts - and that's a harsh accusation, but COLOR has a number of citations to back it up) to stop discussion. Some of the choice of questions in this FAQ update seem to add to that feeling of disrespect - "How will a movement name with Wikipedia in it not be confusing?" is a biased question.

I appreciate that WMF management has put you in an incredibly hard spot, as you're being forced to try to justify a project with essentially zero community support. But I think that when it comes to meta, as with mainspace on all projects, it's possible for people of disparate opinions to collaborate to produce fair content. And if we do that, the some that feeling of disrespect will dissipate - the FAQ is neutral, the reports are accurate, the questions are unbiased. TomDotGov (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the three of us are saying the same thing. We are trying to work together to produce content that is useful. I think we can agree that being disrespectful will not help us achieve that goal. Acknowledging that frustrations are running high right now, I hope we can pay extra attention to how we talk to each other and collaborate. The question you've identified has been changed, and per the discussion I think you know now why it was phrased the way it was (based on the question we actually get, not an attempt at disrespect). --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The community was nearly unambiguous in it's rejection of using Wikipedia for the foundation, yet you completely disregarded the community and stuck with your private position and only included proposals, that were 100% against the community. How on earth can you call such behaviour collaborate? What's collaboration, if one side is completely ignored and a very small minority is doing whatever it likes? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I really think you started this with good intentions and a lot of enthusiasm, but what does it need to show you, that you are beating a dead horse? If you just said:

Sorry, we misunderstood the problem, and the research we did lead us to wrong conclusions. We had best intentions, but now we see, it's nothing, that the community wants. We won't go on with this project, as it was based on wrong assumptions and will not get any traction within the most superior group in the Wikiverse, the community.

Everything would be fine, you could use your skills on some wanted projects, and won't get ridiculed by those, who just are the whole Wikiverse: The community. This renaming enterprise is by now a dead horse, it will only be possible by something like Superprotect, and that will hopefully not be a solution anybody really thinks about. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 - Why is having a clear, consistent brand important?

I'd suggest removing this question entirely, as it's one that that I think it would be hard to come up with a neutral answer to. The question itself is a bit misleading, as it implies the proposed changes of this project are "clear, consistent", when the consensus is that the proposed changes would increase confusion. The answer is also misleading, as renaming " the range of products, services, organizations, and groups" isn't even proposed. What's more, many organizations choose to have a range of brands for different parts of the organization (think Alphabet, Google, Youtube, Android, Chrome, etc), which makes the importance of this debatable, and hence the question and answer unsuitable for a FAQ entry. TomDotGov (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the clearness and consistency will be heavily reduced by abusing the name of one project for the foundation of all projects. It will definitely create a lot confusion. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The question, and the rebranding project itself, completely miss the point that the WMF projects, including Wikipedia, aim to distribute verifiable knowledge and to discourage ambiguity and fuzzy knowledge. Branding is about emotional simplification through an abstract symbol. It's like flag-waving. We could apply for NGO observer status at the United Nations as WMF, without needing to pretend that the WMF is Wikipedia. It's true that the name "Wikipedia" is extremely widely recognised. It's also a fact (based on my WP:OR anecdotal experience) that many people recognise the name "Wikipedia" but have no idea what it really is, in the sense of how it's constructed and edited and how the community works together in a radically transparent way using free software and community servers, not authoritarian servers. Trying to switch from "Wikimedia" to "Wikipedia" would only increase the misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

A literal answer to the question from the WMF point of view would seem to be: "Because we [the rebranding project] detest knowledge and prefer emotional attachment to an abstract symbol."

Boud (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

June 2020 - What is in scope for this project? What will not be changed?

The answer to this question does not make it clear that, in all naming conventions that are still under consideration, the Foundation project team proposes to dilute the name of of Wikipedia. Instead of referring to a set of encyclopedia projects as it does now, the project proposes that Wikipedia refer to the Foundation, the organization, and whatever affiliates adopt the new naming scheme. This is an incredibly important change, as it means that actively political (often in an appropriate way) organizations will share a name with projects founded on neutrality. TomDotGov (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 - Who is going to be affected by the brand changes?

The answer to this question fails to address that the dilution of the Wikipedia name affects that project - in general, this appears to be a running issue through many of these question and answers. I'd say that simply saying "the team also recognizes concerns that an emphasis on Wikipedia could negatively impact the visibility of the other projects" is probably too weak of a phrasing for this - the cost of moving from a name that is "neutral" between projects to one that emphasizes a single project should be addressed more directly. TomDotGov (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've inserted Wikipedia there, though the sentence could probably be in need of some fine-tuning, as I'm no native speaker. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I inserted the point about confusion into concerns. "the team also recognizes concerns that an emphasis on Wikipedia could negatively impact the visibility of the other projects" could have a mention of dilution as well, as I know this is a concern that has been brought up. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia will definitely be affected, that's a fact, that cannot be denied. Use your own words, but don't try to hide this fact. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems like one of the most important concerns, and one that hasn't really been addressed well. The Wikimedia Foundation is, among other things, a political organization. If you look at the foundation's news page, the first thing there is an political statement that includes "On these issues, there is no neutral stance." That might be a valid, but it's against the NPOV principles of the encyclopedia project. The answer needs to directly address this proposed dilution of the Wikipedia identity - not in some sort of "people are concerned about it", but as a real consequence of Foundation rebranding. TomDotGov (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 - How were the three naming convention proposals developed?

The brand concept, interconnection, was not actually developed at a workshop - a large number of proposals were developed, none of which were interconnection, and then the interconnection concept was substituted for them at the last minute. I don't know what the right way to express this is, but I think it's misleading to imply that the interconnection concept in any way flowed directly from the workshops.

"The ideas were refined and presented to the Board of Trustees, who expressed alignment with the three options being presented for community review." I don't know what "expressing alignment" means. The Board of Trustees has made a single line statement about the Branding Project in may 2020, and a single trustee has produced a letter since then. The FAQ should not get ahead of the Board here, and so this line needs to be removed. TomDotGov (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The report on the concept work shows that "connection" was a concept that came directly from a workshop, and it was the *most endorsed* concept in the concept exercise. Interconnection built on "connection" as a way to incorporate other highly endorsed and recurring themes from the concepts at the workshops.

The May 2020 meeting was explicitly to present the proposals to the Board to get alignment on them, and this happened. Otherwise they would not have given the green light to continue with the project by presenting the names for review. Resolutions hardly ever go into detail. This is not getting a head of the Board, it is an accurate representation of the process. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel that I'm convinced about how the "interconnection" concept came out of "connection", so I'm going to go ahead and strike that out. I wasn't aware that connection ranked so highly.

I don't think it should be the place of the FAQ to "interpret" what the board says. I get the impression that when the board makes a one line statement, that one line has been chosen with great care. I think that if the board wanted to "express alignment" (again, not a phrase that I know the meaning to), they would have done so, rather than having chose a statement that does not mention it.

While I was driving out to get lunch, something hit me - I think the story this question tells is really misleading, when it comes to the timeline. The idea of rebranding to Wikipedia was presented to the board back in 2015, we learned that from the talk page of the executive statement. So in addition to the branding process, I think there should be some mention that there was a choice to utilize the Wikipedia name in branding for at least that, long. TomDotGov (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 - How will a movement name with Wikipedia in it not be confusing?

The question here is phrased in an incredibly non-neutral way, as it only accepts answers that a name with Wikipedia in it will not be confusing. Given that a large number of the participants in this project believe that a movement name with Wikipedia in it will be confusing, to ask the question in this way introduces bias into this FAQ.

The answer is similarly biased, as right now it only expresses the position of the Foundation project team, one that has been roundly rejected. (And one that the Foundation answered in the opposite manner in earlier versions of this FAQ.)

This question needs to be change to "Will a movement name with Wikipedia in it be confusing?" While it may make sense to present the Foundation's view of the answer in the FAQ, it needs to be balanced out by the community consensus that using the name "Wikipedia" for things that are not encyclopedias increases confusion. The FAQ entry is not doing it's job if it doesn't mention how "The Wikipedia Foundation does not make policy for the English Wikipedia." is a confusing statement.

I'm not sure what the right answer for this is - should we delete the question in its entirely, or rewrite the question, and then present multiple perspectives for the answer? TomDotGov (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The question is the actual question as we are getting it. It acknowledges that people are initially confused and want to know in what way a proposal like this could actually mitigate confusion. "Will a movement name with Wikipedia in it be confusing?" is not a question I have ever gotten. It is not an FAQ. People already have an idea formed before asking the question. People believe it may be confusing and are specifically asking about the other side. I don't mind at all calling out the Project Team's perspective and the perspective represented on the RfC. I do think the language that "the whole Wikimedia ecosystem will be destroyed" is not helpful or constructive. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the question and the community's answer together. I'm not sure that the questions you're asked will be representative - people are likely asking you for a specific perspective, and probably wouldn't ask you to represent the community's position. I think that the FAQ needs to have a neutral question that allows all answers to be considered fairly. Answering "How will a movement name with Wikipedia in it not be confusing?" with "It will be." makes the answer seem flippant, in a way that it's not really meant to be.

I would suggest representing the community perspective (to simply call it the RfC perspective is minimizing it - not everyone on the RfC shares the same opinion, while the community perspective is now represented on wikimedia-l, COLOR, discussions on the two statements, the straw poll - really, everywhere that's open for discussion) after the Foundation's perspective makes sense.

I'd say that a few objections are:

• The community believes that renaming the Foundation after a project makes statements like "The Wikipedia Foundation does not set policy for the German Wikipedia." inherently confusing.
• The community does not understand how renaming a the Foundation after a single project will indicate that the movement is comprised of multiple projects, and that the projects are equal to each other.
• The community believes that if the Foundation is renamed to include Wikipedia, many statements that the Foundation makes will go against the principles that govern wikipedia.
• The community believes that having multiple entities with Wikipedia in the name will make it more, rather than less, difficult to explain to outsiders the structure of our movement.

While I think Sänger's wording is terse, he wrote "the now existing distinction between the encyclopedia project and the whole Wikimedia ecosystem will be destroyed." To characterize that as "the whole Wikimedia ecosystem will be destroyed" seems to be an unfair representation of what was written. TomDotGov (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's of course right: The distinction will be destroyed, the Wikiverse itself hopefully not. To mis-quote me in this malicious way is definitely not compatible with Meta:Civility. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

[ec] (response to User:ELappen (WMF)) This appears to be a legitimate point. It is a way the question might be posed by someone who cannot see an obvious way that the proposed name will not be confusing. However I do not find the position of the branding team as expressed on the content page compelling. Although it probably will not be as destructive to the Wikimedia ecosystem as the end-Permian extinction, I would not be surprised if it does severe and lasting damage, both to the Wikipedia projects and particularly to the other projects. The Foundation and Brand Project Team may have the most to lose. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

PS. I endorse the analysis above by TomDotGov. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I don't feel strongly about this. I've changed the question and clarified the team's position. I still think the wording about destruction is unconstructive, perhaps terse is a better description, but I imagine this language is in flux anyhow. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently there is a clear and unambiguous distinction between the Wikipedia and Wikimedia, this distinction will be destroyed by using the name of one for both. How is this stating of simple facts in any way unconstructive? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly? Using the world "destroyed" feels a bit overdramatic to me. I tend to think of meteors crashing into planets, just like Pbsouthwood seem to. I'd rather just say that the "the now existing distinction between the encyclopedia project and the larger Wikimedia ecosystem will become confused", which speaks directly to the point of this section. TomDotGov (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ich bin kein Englisch-Muttersprachler, also auf Deutsch: Aktuell gibt es eine klare Unterscheidung zwischen dem Projekt Wikipedia und Wikimedia, diese klare Unterscheidung würde durch die Benutzung des gleichen Namens für beides zerstört. Ich halte das für einen ganz normalen Satz ohne jedes Aggressionspotential. Ich hielte z.B. das weiche aufgegeben für zu weich und nicht deutlich genug. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you think about something like the "The community believes that maintaining a distinction between the Wikipedia project and the Wikimedia foundation is beneficial, and that the elimination(/destruction) of that distinction would increase confusion." As a full proposal, I'd like to follow the first paragraph of the answer up with:

The consensus position of the community is that renaming the Foundation to a name that includes Wikipedia would increase, rather than decrease, confusion between the project and the organization. While the reasoning behind this is as diverse as the community, common themes include:

• The community believes that renaming the Foundation after a project makes statements like "The Wikipedia Foundation does not set policy for the German Wikipedia." inherently confusing.
• The community does not understand how renaming a the Foundation after a single project will indicate that the movement is comprised of multiple projects, and that the projects are equal to each other.
• The community believes that if the Foundation is renamed to include Wikipedia, political statements that the Foundation makes will go against the principles that govern Wikipedia.
• The community believes that having multiple entities with Wikipedia in the name will make it more, rather than less, difficult to explain to outsiders the structure of our movement.
• The community believes that maintaining a distinction between the Wikipedia project and the Wikimedia foundation is beneficial, and that the destruction of that distinction would increase confusion.

While this is not an exhaustive list, it shows some of the ways the community believes that renaming the Foundation could increase confusion.

Any comments? I'd think that the combination of the current Foundation statement and something like this might be neutral enough that we could remove the disclaimer from the question, though I'd want more opinions on this. TomDotGov (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statements attributed to the community

We have agreed that proper attribution contributes to the neutrality of this page. This is true for statements made by the Brand team, and also for statements attributed to the community. For instance, this edit ("The community thinks...") can be improved by referencing to statements supported in any of the channels where community contributors are expressing their feedback (RfC, straw poll, Open letter...). Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I could put there several dozend references, as in nearly every discussion this argument came from the community, and I havn't seen any valid argument up to now, how this mix-up could possibly decrease confusion. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

How will the identical naming of both the whole movement and one single project help to keep them apart? That is the crucial question, and I havn't seen an answer to that by now. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Qgil-WMF, this FAQ lacks of references. I am happy to add the link to three pages where there is plenty of people expressing this opinion. -- Noé (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Blanking this Page

This page is non-neutral, misleading, and inaccurate. There is a lot of discussion that needs to happen on this talk page to fix that, the discussion isn't happening, and when the brand project unpauses it's likely to go in the wrong direction.

What would people think about simply blanking this page in it's entirely. This FAQ was always a source of more heat than light, and the project would be better off without it. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 19:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the current page is just a propaganda page by the renaming enthusiasts and lacks any NPOV. Any try to change it in a more neutral fashion were blocked by the proselytes of renaming towards the unwanted Wikipedia. They simply don't want any neutral page, they don't want any community involvement that dares to have another POV. They are just marketeers for their private POV, and don't want anything objective. So it's probably better to simply delete all those marketing lies on the frontpage here, then to change them to anything useful an NPOV. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)