Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Adopt and advance brand"

Hi. What does "Adopt and advance brand" mean specifically? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:MZMcBride, “Adopt and advance brand” is the phase of this project when the new brand system will be implemented and up for community groups to adopt and use. We will be building tools with our design partner to help make it easier, we’ll know more about that when we’re closer to that stage. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment on naming as «Wikipedia»

I find it a bit weird that the subject page just claim this as a defined and set goal, and then goes on with a process for achieving that goal. This is cookbook for a real clash with the communities, especially for those projects that isn't «Wikipedia». 46.46.201.109 20:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add links to the documents created so far

Please add links to the documents, such as the one implied by "Summarize findings from brand strategy community consultation", that are funded by our donor dollars and are of interest to people who would like to follow this process. Thanks. Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Here you go. The link was already there at the bottom of the page and we have added it to the mentioned section. Hope that helps. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Marketing

Snøhetta seems a commercial company with a website that shows a blank page when javascript is blocked. Are we giving money to an evil company? We have enough volunteers to not have to pay commercial parties for marketing nonsense. And branding strategy is also not important: fire everyone who gets payed to do it. Zanaq (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Will you stop wasting money once the expected outcome of the RfC is fixed?

There never was any value for this at all, but now you know that nearly nobody outside a detached circle of functionaries with no contact to the projects sees this as a good idea. When will you stop investing any more money in this DOA project? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It may indeed make more sense to invest that money in preventing things like these. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Snøhetta exercise #1: What does free knowledge mean to you?

Snøhetta invites volunteers to share what free knowledge means to each of us in their first open exercise: https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/. These exercises will happen periodically in key moments throughout the process. The results will be publicly summarized and will be used to shape the next steps. Feel free to leave feedback with them directly through the site, or to post your answers here. We will ensure they see responses to their exercises posted on-wiki. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge is probably the easier half of the sentence - it's something like "verifiable information". The precise definition of what that means varies from project-to-project, as Wikisource might verify the knowledge comes from a book in question, while Wikipedia verifies it's correctness. Still, I think there's fundamentally that core of verifiable information that makes knowledge knowledge.

As for freedom, there are two aspects to it. There's free-as-in-beer - we make everything we do available to everyone in the world without cost. But more importantly, there is free-as-in-freedom. The idea that there aren't gatekeepers, that our websites are wikis that anyone that shares our goals can edit is at the core of our DNA. We've decide - and shown - that the best way to get that verifiable information is to let people edit the encyclopedia, make changes, and through a process of slow improvement become one of the biggest collections of verifiable information in the world.

Probably the most important part of this is there is no single person or organization (especially not the foundation) that is in charge of the content or Wikipedia and the other wikis, and as a free knowledge project, there could not be such a body. It's important that any brand system not mislead by conflating the foundation with individual projects, like Wikipedia. I'm sure the members of Snøhetta can observe this at work as part of this process - earlier in this process, information was presented that made it seem like the editor community was in favor of using 'Wikipedia' in the name of the foundation. As time went by, this was corrected to the show that the editing community is between 3:1 and 10:1 against, and always has been. This is an example of our free knowledge movement working, here on meta - rather than having a central body that can insist on something being presented, we work together to verify the information and correct it when it was misleading. TomDotGov (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism toward Snøhetta exercise #1: What does free knowledge mean to you?

Is brandingwikipedia.org a page under full control of Wikimedia, or is it outside the Wikiverse and thus irrelevant?

And what does Snøhetta say about being banned on enWP for sockpuppeteering?

Why do you go on with this at all, even though it's clear that the community overwhelmingly rejected this, and the community is after all the highest entity in the Wikiverse?

Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Will the responses be exported as open data and preserved somewhere on the Wikimedia sites after this website is archived? I note that there is no copyright waiver before submission, which is problematic: «Note: Responses will be used to inform the concept and design of our collected brand system». (What's a "collected system" by the way?) Nemo 11:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The limitation to at tweet-like 280 characters, and the lack of community usernames seems like it will limit the usefulness of the brandingwikipedia.org website. So, I'll reply here without those limitations. TomDotGov (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've answered over there, but it isn't published yet, that's a very anti-wiki behaviour. Everything must be in the full open, deleting anything must be done as well in rhe full open. Some stuff may be hidden from public for some reawsons, but that hiding has to be done es well in the open. Everything not in the open is not valid. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Podcast with the Director of Brand

Last week I got to do a podcast with User:ZMcCune (WMF) about the brand project. You’ll find it on Wikimedia Commons, or on Wikipediapodden if you prefer regular podcast players. Ainali (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, the user seems to be a bit shy to take part in the discussions here, he obliviously likes the closed shop over there without community involvement better. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Members of the Foundation"

The current text talks about "members of the Foundation". The Foundation does not have members, please correct. Nemo 06:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about "members of the Foundation" generally, but the text read "members of Foundation staff", which was quite clunky. I've edited the text to fix that. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's clearer. Nemo 09:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblocking Snøhetta on enwiki

My request to unblock en:User:SnøhettaAS was denied. I have asked that they appeal and offered to help. EllenCT (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting my actual close which basically says they should appeal themselves and that people shouldn’t use en.wiki processes to prove a point on meta. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I have resolved the sourcing and COI issues on en:Snøhetta (company) and placed an outline at en:Draft talk:BrandingWikipedia.org in preparation for phase two. While I still feel strongly that my straw poll is superior, I have reported the dead link at the bottom of https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/ which I hope resolves the copyright issue for submissions. (@Slaporte (WMF): who would know for sure?) EllenCT (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that. We have also been in touch with Snøhetta regarding their block on English Wikipedia (which happened before they were contracted by the Foundation). It seems like things have been slightly complicated by the fact that the person who created the account is no longer with Snøhetta. We’re seeing if the opportunity exists for someone else at the company to access the account and go through the unblock process. We also flagged the deadlink for Snøhetta and it should be fixed shortly. We're talking to Legal to ensure all the bases are covered on that. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Userids of Taherivand, Apel, and Panigrahi?

https://brandingwikipedia.org fixed their CC-BY-SA link and has a new section at the bottom of the page:

Strategy

Building on a year of brand research, strategic planning and community consultations, this project invites members of the Wikimedia movement to collaborate on an updated movement identity.

VIEW OUR STRATEGY

linking to Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030 research and planning which lists the community advisers as, Abraham Taherivand, Jan Apel, and Subhashish Panigrahi. What are their userids? EllenCT (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

de:Abraham Taherivand is the Vorsitzender of Wikimedia Deutschland, his user account is User:Abraham Taherivand (WMDE). Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The other two are User:Jan Apel (WMDE) and User:Psubhashish. --Yair rand (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

When we represent free knowledge, we as a movement are more than just text.

We are many viable projects that all have our movement in common. The problem that will become even more entrenched is that by renaming our organisation, our movement to its best known project, it that we stand for what English Wikipedia has become. We will become more of a Nupedia than of a Wiki. Just consider the vitriol poured out over the Cebuano Wikipedia, a labour of love by a father who wants his kids to have something to read in their maternal language. What people fail to understand is that because of the way knowledge domains are covered, more information is available in the Cebuano Wikipedia than in the English Wikipedia for those domains. As we insist on the laborious process that is said to be needed for Wikipedia content, we do not provide information that is available elsewhere.

The influence of Wikipedia is even detrimental in projects like Commons where in its OTRS, notability is defined as good for Wikipedia, disregarding other projects. The OTRS community was aghast that they were called not fit for purpose BECAUSE of their bias. Talking of bias, Wikipedia is hugely biased; it is impossible to think that a bot could write articles for all places that are outside the USA and, yes a bot wrote initial content for all places in the USA.

This whole rebranding exercise makes sense when we are about one project. We are not and personally I dread the thought that I will be forced to call myself a Wikipedian. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Case studies

Hi there. Thank you for the effort on working on the brand project; I think this is an exciting process. As I read through the FAQ, I was wondering if research to compile other cases of name changes was conducted. Research outputs that are mentioned in the brand project, at least from what I have skimmed through (i.e, report to the BT or the section on qualities of good movement branding), rest upon community insights --from affiliates and individual editors--, and though these outputs are of course relevant they might not be enough to inform and support the name-change project. A critical account of actual documented name changes in the real world, identifying from these cases what worked well and what did not work so well, might contribute to providing a real-world sense of how these changes occur. I know we are a very specific case (collaborative, global...) --but what organization is not after all?--, but to look at other experiences might be beneficial in any case to provide inputs on reasons for change, to help come up with strategies to reduce transition costs and to deal with community/consumer resistance, and establish a smooth process of name change. Maybe this was answered elsewhere; sorry if I have missed it. --Joalpe (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Joalpe: great question and we should definitely elevate the case studies that have been useful so far in this process. I'm getting a list from the team and will add them to the "See also" section on the project page. I can ping you here when they're up. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again @Joalpe: I've compiled and linked to resources on the project page related to rebrands. I found the Amnesty International guide to be the most thorough and insightful for answering these questions. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nurturing

https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/nurturing/ EllenCT (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SUL seems to be not properly working, I get some strange log-in page if I follow your link. So that#s no valid page for any discussion about anything within the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wordpress login screen is has been replaced by another audience reply text form. At this point I wish they would have Ward Cunningham talk to Snohetta about the development of wikis out of such forms. I'm not going to pass judgement until I've seen the full spectrum of what they want to do in this direction, but, well, they should really mind meld with Ward to make this go smoother. EllenCT (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts says "Note: This a beta version for testing purposes only. Do not distribute." Uhhhh. I don't remember where I found the /nurturing link but just for the record it didn't say that and I didn't try /concepts until just now. I hope there is time for Ward to talk to them about, "Responses that are on-topic will appear below," for example. EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The concepts are not ready for review and as you note EllenCT this is a beta version. More information once Snohetta and the branding team is prepared. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Call to action

I no longer wish to be associated with the rebranding effort. I reserve the right to participate in this discussion, and any other including RFC or call(s) to action to preserve the intellectual, ethical, moral, and community integrity of the movement. I recommend that Snohetta remain blocked on the English Wikipedia.

I urge others, including editors, chapters, and affiliates, to protest the arbitrary topic-scope censoring at https://brandingwikipedia.org by taking a screen shot of on-topic comments urging the Foundation to engage with the community in an uncensored, traditional survey here on Meta, prior to submitting them, and posting the screen shot of your comments on the RFC and Comments on the Rebranding Strategy. EllenCT (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Foundation staff reverting contributors

@Katherine (WMF): do you approve of your employees reverting contributors at e.g. [1] and [2]? EllenCT (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

...@EllenCT This is not helpful. A revert is not an edit war, and I don't think either of these employees have pushed harder than is appropriate. The pattern of Bold, Revert, Discuss always gets complicated when one of the parties is a staffer, but they've been doing pretty okay on this so far. (They've been doing much less than okay on some other issues, but that's neither here nor there.) I don't think trying to draw the attention of the ED to this is going to make these interactions more productive or positive. --Yair rand (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) (Note that some staff outside this group have, in the past, gotten into serious edit wars, practiced mass-deleting comments of opposing editors, abused userrights until they had to be removed, and acted with a general "brute-force everywhere" approach. I'm not saying we should have lowered expectations, but even if we were to conclude that the recent reverts were a bit problematic, we should make a clear distinction between levels of issues, and when it is or is not appropriate to raise the alarm to the highest levels.) --Yair rand (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: how many staff reverts of contributions have occurred in the past week? I have also been reverted, and have asked staff to restore the deletion. At this point it is not clear to me that the staff assigned to this task have the competence required to avoid involving the Foundation in a base push poll. EllenCT (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Four on this page that I can see. Elsewhere, I don't know. The most recent revert seems quite sensible in my opinion; I'd recommend putting the comment about the content on the talk page and not on the content page. --Yair rand (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I am certain that you have undercounted. Please correct me if I am mistaken, Yair rand, but you have stated that you are a Russian opposed to the Foundation and Foundation projects taking any political action "except when dealing with very serious direct threats," have you not? EllenCT (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm Canadian. The part on political action is a not-quite-accurate representation of a quote from my comment on enwiki earlier today. I don't understand how any of this is relevant. On the number of reverts, I count two from CKoerner at 21:05, 11 March and 16:25, 11 March, and one from ELappen at 19:38, 6 March. (The prior one is from more than a week ago, as it turns out.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: are you saying that you have never claimed to be Russian in the same edit as you have claimed to oppose political action? EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. I am very confused about why this is being asked. --Yair rand (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Am i misinterpreting this? @EllenCT: are you accusing another editor of being "Russian", with the implication that that is somehow a bad thing (are we still in the cold war and someone forgot to tell me)? For starters that is highly offensive to all our contributors who actually are from Russia and second seems to be an ad-hominem attack. I think these comments are highly inapropriate and should be retracted. Bawolff (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I most certainly am, Bawolff. I urge you to review [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] while we wait for Yair to decide whether they have claimed to be Russian or not. EllenCT (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

None of those links go to anything where Yair says he is Russian. I also don't see how that could possibly be relevant to a discussion about WMF staff reverting edits, unless you're attempting to give us examples of edits where it might be helpful for them to perform some moderation (specifically, yours). Nathan ^T 16:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Yair on this one. While I sort of wish that staff would communicate a bit more quickly, they are communicating when asked, and in many cases reorganizing page content rather than simply removing it. While I kind of wish they'd discuss before reverting, the discussions are happening, and we're slowly settling on text that is more accurate than would be produced by a public relations department that couldn't be challenged. TomDotGov (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I welcome the opinion of someone with experience moderating discussions in Meta, or at least the opinion of someone neutral in this conversation. Would it be a good idea to delete this section and let EllenCT decide whether they want to bring this topic again, with a fresh take? It is ok to discuss edits as part of the regular dispute resolution process, but all the off-topic discussion is very confusing indeed, and imho requiring moderation. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Meta:Civility.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

In Fact

@Mehman (WMF): I reverted your change, because I don't think that it's right to say in the opening paragraphs that changing the movement branding must change for the movement to succeed. I'd argue that the movement has already succeeded, and hence serves as a counterexample to this 'fact'. I think that for that statement to be plausible, we'd have to assert both that the movement is not currently successful, and that a change in branding would somehow help it to be more so - both things that should probably be explained, rather than asserted. When something is the opinion of a team inside the WMF, I think it's better to attribute it to that team, rather than asserting it as a factual statement. TomDotGov (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I would prefer this to say something along the lines of "rebranding is a proven way for organisations to dispose of surplus cash, with the downside that it can distract organisational attention from underlying problems". WereSpielChequers (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: I think that's a bit much. I think that rebranding has a lot of costs associated with it (money going out to vendors, the monetary cost of staff time, the cost in volunteer time to the editors that will clean up after the change, the cost in users that feel their home projects aren't represented by the Wikipedia name). I suspect the brand team believes that it has benefits that will overwhelm those costs. I think it's best that as they revise these pages, they enumerate those advantages in their team's voice, and try to convince the community that the costs are worth it. I'm not an expert in branding, so it's possible that the experts can explain their position. I just don't think that the right way to do so is by stating it as an unsupported fact that can't be challenged. At the same time, it's the community's place to challenge the brand team. The whole point of our movement is that by working together, we can come up with a better result than an appointed expert would come up with themselves. TomDotGov (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Respectful and constructive dialog

Hello everyone! The discussion in this Talk page is deteriorating and this is an invitation to get things back on track. In order to reduce frustration, the Brand team is going to focus on clarifying the points that seem to bring fear, uncertainty, doubt and other forms of confusion. To do that, we are looking closely at repeat questions posed, using them to improve the main project page, the FAQ and other project pages, and aiming to leave no relevant questions open.

Another critical element of reducing frustration is keeping a respectful and constructive dialog. No matter the topic and the level of disagreement, it is essential to maintain a civil atmosphere. The tone, words and tactics used by some contributors to express their disagreement drive away the majority of people who could bring this conversation to higher levels, including the Foundation staff that has been tasked to develop this project.

This project is important, strategic and complex, as we can see by the quantity and diversity of opinions and conversations it is raising. We are committed to keeping these project pages in Meta as friendly and welcoming as the other venues where this project is being discussed. We welcome your help achieving this basic goal. Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

For instance. Since this invitation to get things back on track was posted yesterday, a comment has been published that in my opinion deserves moderation. The comment provides an answer to a question asked by another contributor, and does this in one sentence (good!). However, in my view the rest of the comment combines disrespect to community members participating in project activities, ill-considered accusations against the team, and a judgmental tone in general. I will ask the author to consider this reasoning and edit their comment accordingly. If you have thoughts, please share them. Having more perspectives can only be beneficial to the conversation.

The topic of the inappropriate extra portions of this comment revolves around the use of off-wiki spaces by the project, a topic that this author has brought several times in this page alone (I count nine) and more in other places. Since the point itself is valid and we are certain that it is contributing to the frustration of some people, we will clarify it in the project documentation. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

How would you have rephrased those sections about the use of off-wiki spaces in a way that achieved a response? I think that a lot of editors of the wikis that give wikimedia value are getting frustrated that their voices aren't being heard in this process. This has historically been a problem - we're coming off the experience of Flow, where the WMF invested substantial resources into a project that didn't have community buy in. We seem to be in this mess because the community is following contemplated dispute resolution steps like inviting neutral users to participate in an RfC, but that's being ignored, while posts of borderline civility get clarifications.

Can I suggest collecting a list of question that the community would like addressed, here and on the RfC page? That would provide a way of getting clarifications without civility issues. TomDotGov (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The RfC isn't being ignored. The team has been watching it since the moment it started, they have shared their thoughts about the RfC in its Talk page, and they are processing all the feedback captured. The next step there is to share the list of open questions in a concise and neutral format, answer them, and assure that those answers bring clarity to the project pages.

I see how bringing the posts challenging Meta:Civility might give the impression that after all these are getting the attention first. What happens is this: responding to feedback and improving documentation takes time, and time is limited. When the discussion deteriorates then the time required to do exactly the same work increases exponentially, and everything slows down. The discussion of this section is explicitly about civility, but we see it as a step required to sort the priorities in the right order and reduce as much confusion as possible in as little time as possible. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Warum sollte es extra Zeit brauchen, auf der einzig validen Diskussionsplattform, nämlich hier auf Meta, an der Diskussion teilzunehmen? Nur eine Diskussion hier kann ein valide Ergebnis bringen. Wenn hier, an der einzig validen Stelle, keine schnellen und konkreten Antworten kommen, dann ist das ein Fehler, denn hier hat die Diskussion statt zu finden. Solange keine konkreten Antworten kommen, wird die Diskussion natürlich nicht besser werden, aber ist das die Schuld derjenigen, die gute und angemessene Fragen stellen, und auf Fehler hinweisen, oder von denjenigen, die nicht reagieren und augenscheinlich das Ganze aussitzen wollen? Denn aussitzen wollen ist der unvermeidliche Schluss, der aus dem aktiven Nichtantworten auf Fragen und Hinweise, selbst nach Ping und Hinweisen auf den Benutzer-Disks, gezogen werden muss. Hier spielt die Musik, woanders gibt es nur Nebengeräusche. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

After two weeks without a response, it sure seems like the RfC is being ignored. The foundation appears to be spending movement resources on 'branding exercises', despite the ongoing RfC. Without Sänger's repeated criticisms of off-wiki actions you wouldn't be here to tell us a response is being planned, which means that they've achieved something. I agree that a calm discussion flows more smoothly than a heated one - certainly, I've taken a long time to write this reply. So I think that brings me back to my first question - how can we discuss things in a way that is both calm, and gets results?

I'd like to discuss the problems in the previous FAQ, like the way I had to correct a misleading presentation of community sentiment[11], before the new one is created. I realize this sort of thing is a hard conversation to have, so how do we get to the point where we can do it in a collegial way, rather than having the WMF staff go off to repeat the prior mistake of discussing things off-wiki, and then coming out with something that is torn apart on-wiki? That's the FLOW process, a process that didn't benefit anyone. What's the equivalent of the Talk Pages Project for Branding? TomDotGov (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Da ich augenscheinlich auf Englisch zu harsch rüber komme, werde ich künftig nur noch auf Deutsch schreiben.

Ich stehe zu meiner Beurteilung der versteckten Hinterzimmer und der Diskussionen auf datenschutztechnisch absolut inakzeptablen Seiten wie Facebook. Beides zeugt meiner Meinung nach von einem großen Mangel an Respekt und ist das Gegenteil von zivilisiert. Wir sind hier im Wikiversum, alles wichtige passiert hier on-wiki. Allein für reine Softwarewartungssachen gibt es Speziallösungen wie Phabricator oder Gerrit. Nur für datenschutzsensitive Admin- und Steward-Sachen sind auch versteckte Orte wie private Wikis oder IRC-Kanäle zulässig. Und für eher langsame Kommunikation gibt es da noch die tradierten Mailinglisten. Sonst gibt es nur on-wiki, oder es ist belanglos. Selbst bei RL-Treffen wie der Wikimania sind nur Sachen, die auch asap im Wiki veröffentlicht werden valide Sachen.

Dieses neue (und schon wieder weggeworfene) Space war immerhin augenscheinlich offene Software auf WikiMedia-Servern, es war hinreichend forumesque und taugte augenscheinlich als Chatter-Venue. Es war noch nicht so weit verbreitet, es gab allerdings auch so gut wie keine Werbung oder Veröffentlichung dieses neuen Ortes. Und selbst da gab es einen Bereich, der entgegen den allgemeinen Regeln der möglichst umfassenden Transparenz und Inklusion verschlossen war, obwohl es um einen zentralen Bereich ging, der alle, absolut alle, versuchen sollte zu involvieren, nämlich unseren Namen. Es gibt keine Erklärung dafür, warum dieser Bereich gesperrt ist, gesperrte Bereiche stehen den Grundprinzipien der Wikimedia diametral gegenüber. Gesperrte Bereiche sind das absolute Gegenteil von Respekt und zivilisiert.

Hier, auf dem für projektübergreifende Fragen primär zuständigen Wiki, wurde fast nicht diskutiert. Fragen wurden lautstark ignoriert. Falsche Fakten wurden gegen Widerstände per Editwar verteidigt. Die FAQ ist bis heute vollkommen irreleitend, weil sie von der falschen Prämisse ausgeht, der Schritt von Wikimedia zu Wikipedia sei bereits beschlossene Sache, eine Korrektur hin zu einer wahrheitsgemäßen Darstellung wird massiv blockiert. Dieses Verhalten ist das Gegenteil von Respekt und zivilisiert.

Die WMF ist die zentrale Serviceorganisation für die Communities, die Communities sind die höchste Instanz im Wikiversum. Die WMF hat keinerlei Weisungsbefugnis über die Communities, die über die reine Legalität hinaus geht. Die Frage, wie Wikimedia sich nennen soll, ist eine, die allein die Communities entscheiden können, die WMF kann dabei höchstens beraten. Es gab bisher keine breit angelegte Communitybeteiligung, nur punktuelle Konsultationen handverlesener Leute, das ist kein valider Communityinput.

Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please upload the paid Wikipedia video ads to Commons

Currently, Google Drive says Blanca Flores, User:BFlores (WMF), is the "owner" of the Foundation's paid Wikipedia TV spots [12] and [13]. Would the Foundation please release those under a free license and upload them to commons so they can be exhibited on-wiki? I hope the rights to broadcast the clips as advertisements allow for such licensing; if not, I would love to know the details for future reference, and suggest the branding, communications, and fundraising team should too. EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any link between rebranding and these ads(?). This is a talk page about rebranding, not ask-WMF staff/board-anything. There are other more suitable places you can place requests like this. Please refrain from such sidetracking posts. tufor (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

At some point people will want to remix them with the brand proposal. I was going to write a program to do that automatically, but I would like not to be sued out of existence by Hollywood. EllenCT (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I don't have details about this. Since the question has to do with licensing of very specific pieces, best if you send Blanca an email bflores (AT) wikimedia (DOT) org. Thanks ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we try her talk page? EllenCT (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, you can. I believe the best way to reach her about these types of things is via email, though. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

On-Wiki is the normal way of communicating with others in the Wikiverse, that should be made clear with any employee with signing of the contract. Those who don't communicate on-wiki have the wrong job. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the statement by Sänger that communication should be on-wiki as default, as many of the problems we are having are caused by non-transparent off-wiki one-way communications masquerading as community involvement. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to vent that here. ELappen just said that it was fine to use the user talkpage, but suggested (merely suggested) that it may be more effective to use email. Do with that recommendation what you like. You could, of course, also decide to do both: leave a message on the user talkpage, and then send a kind reminder via email linking to it. Effeietsanders (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Photo licensing

The main photo on https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/public-good/ (for example) is credited "Photo: PtrQs / CC BY-SA" - there are no web links in that credit, nor on the image.

It's a copy of File:PhareDeLaVieille_DSC08079_PtrQs.jpg by User:PtrQs, which is actually under an "Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" licence.

The Commons page for the image says (my emboldening): "attribution – You must give appropriate credit [and] provide a link to the license".

Why has this term not been complied with?

Other photographs - for example on https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/galaxy-2/ - are credited like: "Photo by Jeremy Thomas on Unsplash" (which does include links - see original), with no licence mentioned, but on pages which say in their footer "Except where otherwise noted, the content of this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license."

Attempting to pass off Unsplash content as CC by-sa 3.0 would seem to be (or potentially to lure reusers into) a breach of the Unsplash licence terms, which "does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service" (which CC by-sa 3.0 would allow).

Finally, some images - like the lead image on https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/galaxy/ - are not attributed, making it impossible to know how to comply their inheritance of the page's default CC by-sa 3.0 licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, we'll work with Snohetta on getting these concerns addressed. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Snohetta "moderating" input

At https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/#comment-62 the page mentions that it is "moderated", presumably by Snohetta personnel. This is a level of non-transparency that is incompatible with our traditions and expectations. I added a comment, which should have been acceptable on any project talk page, but it appears to have been "moderated" out by whichever nameless persons have been appointed to keep the page free of anything that they don't think supports their propaganda, and it seems there is no way of querying this behaviour. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

All this process seems to be totally non-trasparent and incompatible with Wikimedia movement principles.--Ferdi2005_[Mail] 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important that feedback like this is included in the list of responses we've been promised the brand team will create. We have a number of legitimate forums for discussion that were decided when this project was back in the research and planning phase. It's not clear why, once the feedback that was produced by these forums proved to be negative, the project team invented new types of responses, rather than accepting community sentiment. The justifications for this need to be prominent in any future responses. Alternatively, an admission that this was a mistake would help move this project forwards to its conclusion.

Just stepping back, it's pretty clear that creating new forums to assess community sentiment was a mistake. The original forums would have reported community opposition, new forums were created that didn't, and in the fullness of time we have something like 85% community opposition. That's something that should be addressed, also. TomDotGov (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Dann also wieder mal auf Deutsch:

Auch bei der ersten dieser vorgeblichen Communitybeteiligungen wurde von irgendwelchen undurchsichtigen Kräften zensiert und nur handverlesene Sachen, die augenscheinlich in das vorgefertigte Konzept passen mussten, angezeigt. Eine tatsächliche offene Beteiligung war offensichtlich nie vorgesehen, alles fand und findet in verschlossenen Hinterzimmern von irgendwelchen durch nichts legitimierten Leuten statt. Dies wurde auch weiter oben unter #Snøhetta exercise #1: What does free knowledge mean to you? schon angesprochen, irgendwelche Reaktionen darauf gab es aber nicht.

Wieso wird in dieser Sache alles in irgendwelchen dunklen, geschlossenen, von der Öffentlichkeit möglichst effektiv abgeschotteten Hinterzimmern verhandelt? Das ist das totale Gegenteil unserer Grundprinzipien der Offenheit und Transparenz. Sowieso hat keine externe Firma irgendwelche Befugnisse in Bezug auf das Wikiversum, diese darf unter keinen Umständen irgendwas zebnsieren, das steht allein gewählten Mitgliedern der Community zu, also Admins, Stewards etc.

Kurz: Dieser gesamte Prozess hat keinerlei Legitimation, rr ist lediglich eine große Geldverbrennungsaktion. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter (Southwood) is your comment the one that appears in the URL you shared? "More information and verifiability..." The form in that page says "Anyone can post anonymously on this website, therefore it is moderated to prevent spam and off-topic posts. Users can also post responses on the Meta project talk page or the Brand Network.". If anyone prefers to share their thoughts in Meta they can do just that, and their feedback will be integrated to the process just like the feedback received in the other channels. The section corresponding to that question is Snøhetta exercise #1: What does free knowledge mean to you?. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Qgil-WMF, that is correct. It was not there when I entered it, or for some time afterwards. There was no message acknowledging that I had submitted a comment, or any indication that I could see of a delay to be expected before it would be published, It just disappeared without trace. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The community's concerns

Thank you for your effort but at the moment I still see a strong opposition inside the community. You state that you "reached more than 9,000 people across 8 languages in 37 countries" but in my opinion this strong opposition (39 support and 375 oppose) remains still unsolved. --Ilario (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ilario, the communities' concerns need to be acknowledged and addressed, there is no question about that. The RfC you mention is the clear expression of a sentiment and we want to resolve the points being brought there. We plan to publish a report of the RfC this week, and we will start addressing the criticism reflected there. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding a plural to a word is not a magic want to make the majority disappear. Please don't engage in the gerrymandering of consensus. Nemo 10:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I was just trying to emphasize that (in my view) the Wikimedia movement is less of a single community and more of a group of communities. It has been many years that whenever someone says "the community" in the context of our movement in a conversation, I make the observation that they probably mean "the communities" unless they are referring to a specific project. This is a way to highlight the plurality and diversity of our movement. Right or wrong, this was my only intent here when emphasizing the plural for "communities". I'm not sure what you are implying with the rest of your comment, so I won't try to answer it. Our report about the RfC should be ready next week. We will invite everyone to share their feedback about it. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's been many years and it's been many years since I bluntly rejected this cheap rhetorical trick, see also Stupidity of the reader. Nemo 07:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Simplifying the 2030 movement brand project page

We aim to make the main page of this project simple and clear enough for anyone in the movement to get a quick and accurate idea of what we are aiming to do and why. This is a complex project that creates answers as it advances, but it can still be clearly explained and easily understood.

To achieve this simplicity and clarity, we plan to restructure the page to have the essential texts, graphics and links. Then we will move all the rest to subpages where we can add all the details needed specific to the topic of each page.

We plan to improve the page edit by edit, starting by the beginning (section zero) and proceeding accordingly. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe that at least two of the three entities that own this project - the movement, the foundation, and the design partner - will work together to make sure this page is simple, clear, and accurate. That needs to include making sure that the page accurately reflects both the foundation's aims and the community's concerns with those aims, as clarified by the dispute resolution process. I think it's important that the foundation's contributions to this page reflect the spirit of the Board's lack of objections to this work subject to consideration of "the importance of being thoughtful in engaging the community, how we would lose any benefits from the current separation of the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brand if the Wikimedia brand goes away, where affiliate branding fits into the overall picture, and possible new names for the Wikimedia Foundation." TomDotGov (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wird bei der Gelegenheit auch der Inhalt so umformuliert, dass er der Realität entspricht, und z.B. die falsche Prämisse des Wechsels zu WikiPedia als Hauptmarke, um die sich das restliche Wikiversum schart, verschwinden? Diese Prämisse ist jedenfalls nicht haltbar, mindestens die Community hat sie mit Bausch und Bogen verworfen. Auch die irreführenden Grafiken müssen angepasst werden: Weder passt der Vergleich von Wikimedia mit Google, da gehörte Alphabet hin, noch wird sich voraussichtlich Wikimedia zu Wikipedia ändern, die Grafik mit der Unterschrift Some things will change ist Unsinn.

Es sollte auch klar gemacht werden, wer was will. Der bisherige Impetus in Richtung Umbenennung ging nicht von der Community aus, ich habe ehrlich nicht so recht eine Idee, wer das so unbedingt wollte und noch will, und vor allem warum. Bislang wurden alle Versuche, die Seite mehr an die Realität heran zu ändern, und die falschen Prämissen dort rauszuhalten, von Menschen mit einem (WMF) hinter dem Kontonamen wieder revertiert. Dieses Vorgehen darf so in keinem Fall fortgesetzt werden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the simpler structure that we have in mind:

• (section zero)
• News
• Problem statement
• Objectives
• Get involved
• Timeline
• Roles
• See also

We aim to get there step by step, not in a revamp in one go. I am going to update section zero now. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Und noch immer die falsche Prämisse, es wird noch immer so getan, als ob die Entscheidung, Wikipedia als zentralen Begriff zu nehmen, längst gefallen wäre, obwohl genau diese Entscheidung von der Community mit überwältigender Mehrheit abgelehnt wird. Die Sektion Null ist noch immer falsch. Gehe ich recht in der Annahme, dass ich, wenn ich sie wahrheitsgemäß umformulieren würde, einfach revertiert würde? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If you think something in section zero is false, can you quote it here please so we know what exactly needs an explanation? Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate if "When the proposal is finalized and approved by the Board..." became "If the finalized proposal is approved by the board..." I believe that rejecting this is well within the board's powers. Right? TomDotGov (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ich hätte gerne einen Link auf die verbindliche und valide Entscheidung der Community, dass der Wechsel von Wikimedia zu Wikipedia beschlossen wurde. Wo war das entsprechende RfC? Bislang wird dies lediglich beleglos behauptet, und dies von Leuten, die diesbezüglich keinerlei Entscheidungskompetenz haben. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the WMF needs community buy-in to run a project. It would be hard to get it adopted in the face of substantial community opposition, and my opinion is that the project would be better re-scoped to explore alternative branding. But I don't think it's false to say that the project is as Qgil describes, until it changes. TomDotGov (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wenn das Projekt tatsächlich um dieses Zentrum kreist, das von dem Souverän des Wikiversums, der Community, mit überwältigender Mehrheit in Bausch und Bogen zerrissen wurde, dann sollte es asap eingestellt werden. Ohne die explizite Zustimmung der Community kann es keine valide Entscheidung geben. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If my translator is working right, that's a 'should' statement, and I think this page is trying to focus on now is 'is'. I think if it's possible to settle on an accurate version of 'is' and 'was', things that should be strictly true, then it might be easier to figure out the 'should' later. The page should be updated with the understanding that the project might be cancelled, and if it is, we benefit from an accurate understanding of what it was. TomDotGov (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wenn es tatsächlich um eine Ist-Darstellung dieses Projektes geht, dann sollter aber klar gemacht werden, das es bisher eine Privatveranstaltung einer kleinen Gruppe ist, die dies ohne jeden Rückhalt der Community durchführt, und dass dieses Projekt natürlich nur dann zu Ende durchgeführt werden kann, wenn die Community eindeutig und klar zustimmt, und zwar in einem RfC oder ähnlich demokratischen verfahren. Die bisherigen Hinterzimmerabsprachen mit ausgewählten UnterstützerInnen der kleinen Gruppe, auf irgendwelchen Privatseiten ohne Transparenz, all das muss klar als das dargestellt werden, was es ist: ein nicht valides Unterfangen einiger weniger. Es gibt keinerlei breite Unterstützung für dieses Vorhaben der Umbenennung, das ist ein totgeborenes Kind. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 23:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding User:Sänger's edit adding that this requires community approval: While this is obviously the correct answer, I think we'd benefit from an unambiguous recognition of this by the WMF, in the form of editing the page to say so. If the WMF is still assuming that the community's approval is not required, the page should indicate both the WMF's position and the actual situation. --Yair rand (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wie ich schon in meiner ZuQ gesagt habe: Das hier ist kein WMF-Wiki, das hier ist das zentrale Wiki der projektübergreifenden Community. Es ist natürlich selbstverständlich, dass nicht allein die Trustees der Community, sondern diese selber in einer solch wichtigen Sache gefragt werden muss und das letzte Wort hat. Wenn die WMF der Meinung ist, die Community dürfe nicht mit entscheiden, das wäre allein Sache der WMF, also der Serviceagentur der Community, dann soll sie das selber explizit so sagen. Aktuell drängt sich teilweise der Eindruck auf, die WMF wolle sich hier als Bestimmer aufschwingen, eine Position, die sie nicht im Mindesten hat. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Joe Friday Approach

As in, "All we want are the facts, ma'am".

I'd like to suggest that as this page and the FAQ are revised, we start by sticking to things we know are facts that are 100% true. Not opinions, not things that should be true, not the way that the project ought to be run - but just the facts that nobody can dispute. I think it makes a sense that if a fact is in dispute, it be brought here - and if we can't come to a consensus, it should just be removed from the page.

I'll call out the change from "If the proposal is approved by the Board, it will be adopted by the Foundation" to "If the proposal is approved by the Board and the community, it will be adopted by the Foundation". I don't think the latter one is true. The board can adopt this without community approval, just like the board could delete Wikipedia entirely and replace it with a licensed copy of the "Honey badger don't care" video, and still be within its mandate. Both might be terrible ideas, but the WMF charter allows it.

I think Qgil has been participating in good faith, when it comes to this - I haven't had a problem having factual corrections added to the page. Even before this revision, when a change was factual, it stuck - the Boards's tepid public support for the project probably isn't something the foundation loves to have pointed out, but it can't be denied, so it's here. My thinking is that if we have a factual page here, then by the time it's done everyone will be able to read it over and say "Wow, this project is a terrible idea, it should either be changed or stop." But I could be wrong - it could be that when the page and FAQ are finished, the pages will make such a clear argument for a change that not even Sänger could deny it. I think the original sin of this project was expecting an expert could come in and tell us what the truth is - that there's some consultant that's smarter than the wisdom of the foundation and the community. We're culturally good at determining what the facts are - let's do that, and once we're done with that, we can worry about what the conclusions should be. TomDotGov (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Da habe ich eine diametral andere Einstellung. Die WMF mag zwar rein technisch in der Lage sein, das Wikiversum kurzfristig abzustellen, die WMF hat aber definitiv nicht das Recht dazu, sämtliche Rechte liegen allein bei der Community, die später aus der Community als Serviceorganisation gegründete WMF ist lediglich Treuhänder, mehr nicht. Sämtliche Rechte liegen bei der Community. Sollte sich die WMF tatsächlich noch schlimmer gerieren als damals, als sie aus reiner Eitelkeit und ohne tatsächlichen Grund SuperProtekt entwickelt hat, würde ein Fork vermutlich klappen. OK, die paar UsurpatorInnen hätten vermutlich das Geld eingesackt, aber ich gehe davon aus, dass es auch dort noch genügend ehrliche und anständige Menschen gibt, die den Putschisten dies nicht durchgehen ließen, und selbst das würde wohl teilweise wieder den wahren EigentümerInnen zufließen.

Ich sehe aktuell keinerlei Vertrauen seitens der WMF gegenüber der Community, im Gegenteil. Es wird sich möglichst effektiv gegen die Community in dunkle Hinterzimmer zurückgezogen, mit einigen handverlesenen Feigenblättern als Communitysurrogat, und selbst ein so eindeutiges und vernichtendes RfC, wie das zu dieser wirren Brandinginitiative, wird versucht möglichst kleinzureden und zu ignorieren. Umseitig hat sich gegenüber den Falschbehauptungen von vorher nichts, aber auch gar nichts, geändert. Es wird weiter das Märchen von der schon getroffenen Entscheidung in Richtung Wikipedia als Zentrum verbreitet, es wird weiter Geld mit dieser komischen Marketingfirma, die in der enWP infinit gesperrt ist, verheizt, bei dem bisher nichts substantielles, nur hohle Phrasen ohne jede Bedeutung rausgekommen sind.

Marketing ist wirklich das allerletzte, as das Wikievrsum braucht. Marketing sind nun mal primär hohle Phrasen ohne Sinn und Verstand. Das Wikiversum ist auch ohne Marketingfuzzis groß geworden, es besteht keinerlei Bedarf diesen Leuten auch nur einen einzigen Cent zukommen zu lassen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a diametrically different attitude. The WMF may be technically able to switch off the Wikiversum at short notice, but the WMF definitely does not have the right to do so, all rights lie solely with the community, the WMF that was later founded by the community as a service organization is only a trustee, nothing more. All rights lie with the community. If the WMF actually did worse than when it developed SuperProtekt out of vanity and for no real reason, a fork would probably work. OK, the couple of usurpers would probably have bagged the money, but I assume that there are still enough honest and decent people there who would not let the putschists get away with it, and even that would in part flow back to the real owners. I currently see no trust on the part of the WMF in the community, on the contrary. It is drawn back into the dark back room against the community as effectively as possible, with some hand-picked fig leaves as a community surrogate, and even a RfC as clear and devastating as that to this confusing branding initiative is tried to be as small as possible and to be ignored. On the other side, nothing has changed compared to the false claims made previously, but nothing at all. The fairy tale of the decision already made towards Wikipedia as the center is spreading, money is still being burned with this strange marketing company, which is infinitely locked in the enWP, where so far nothing substantial, only hollow phrases without meaning have come out . Marketing is really the very last thing Wikievrsum needs. Marketing are primarily hollow phrases without meaning and reason. The Wikiversum has grown without marketing fuzzies, there is no need to send even a single cent to these people. (google translation of above post by Sänger)

While I possibly leave more room for accepting that the WMF and the comittees working on this project are doing so in good faith, I would consider overriding a Wikipedia or a more general Wikimedia community consensus by the WMF board to be a betrayal of trust. I remain hopeful that this is not intended and will not happen. It could permanently cripple the projects and the movement, making the rebranding an exercise in terminal futility. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"Using Wikipedia as a central concept."

Please clarify what the statement using Wikipedia as a central concept. is intended to mean. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter (Southwood) the Wikipedia brand is strong and has a series of values associated to it. This project aims to create a brand system for the movement that uses this brand and these values as a central concept.

I almost can hear someone saying "Alright, but what does this mean in more concrete terms?". It's a great question, and the question this project is aiming to answer. The creative process through workshops and exercises is what is leading to a concrete proposal for a brand system "using Wikipedia as a central concept". What this will be and how this will look like, nobody knows today. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

So is this saying that the slide to the right of this, which shows the organization name changing from "Wikimedia" to "Wikipedia" and basically nothing else concrete, isn't meant to represent a concrete change? Or when the FAQ says, "This brand evolution will include using the Wikipedia name as the center of the movement’s brand system, replacing Wikimedia.", that's not accurate? (Emphasis mine.)

A lot of what the community is seeing seems to point to the suggestion that the Foundation wants to reuse the name "Wikipedia" for something other than the encyclopedia project, and so if that's wrong, that's a central problem with the way this project has been presented for what seems like forever.

(addendum) Or is this a change? If so, it's probably for the better, and one I've been hoping for - but it's confusing to not present it as one. TomDotGov (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TomDotGov's comments above. This needs clarification. It will probably be opposed as long as it remains poorly defined, because poorly defined concepts tend to be refactored to suit someones unspoken agenda somewhere along the line. In a nutshell, if we don't understand it, we can't afford to trust it. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

TomDotGov, in short, I think there has been a problem of communication and perception, and also an evolution of initial understanding by the Brand team as this project is being developed.

The Brand team faces a dilemma between explaining things as open and abstract as they can be in a brand system exploration, or providing illustrations and examples so most people can get a better idea about what is being explored. In the first case we risk people thinking that we are either lost or hiding something. In the second case we risk people taking illustrations or examples literally. Because brands connect strongly with people's identities and emotions, it is easier to perceive these communications in some extreme, when this Brand project requires to be open to questioning, to ambiguity and to multiple perspectives.

Beyond communication, it is also a fact that the Brand team itself is rightfully refining their own understanding as the creative process develops. 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.

Peter (Southwood), it is fine if some community members won't trust this project before seeing how exactly the proposal will use "Wikipedia". Meanwhile, some community members are getting involved in the development of such a proposal.

The process is designed to be open for community involvement since its early stages. As imperfect as this process might be, it would have been worse if the Brand team would have worked on a concrete proposal alone and then would have presented it out of the blue. So yes, we understand that, for some, the current phase is still too abstract. There will be opportunities to discuss in concrete terms. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to call it a "perception" problem - I mean, it's been pretty clear since the RfC started in January how the community perceived this statement, and "This brand evolution will include using the Wikipedia name as the center of the movement’s brand system" was added to the FAQ in February. I'll totally believe it's a communication problem, so let's see if we can work to address that.

I don't see it as a big deal if the Foundation is changing its perspective to be closer to that of the on-wiki community, since I think that's a necessary evolution of this project if it's to go anywhere. Since this page should accurately reflect the status of this project, to suggest updates, I'd like to know:

• Are the WMF and Snøhetta exploring Foundation branding that does not use the Wikipedia name?
• Are the WMF and Snøhetta exploring Foundation branding that uses the Wikipedia name?

Knowing the answers to these would help with the communication problem, and would improve this page. TomDotGov (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: The exploration is about a "brand system" for our movement, using Wikipedia as a central concept. This implies two points relevant to your question. One is that "branding" includes several pieces connected (a system). The other one is that this exploration doesn't focus on the Foundation only. Said this, the Brand team and Snøhetta are exploring options for a brand system that would include "Wikipedia" as a word as well as options that would not include "Wikipedia" as a word. And to be clear, the options available are not only "Wikipedia Foundation" Yes/No, "Wikipedia France" Yes/No... A brand system offers many more possibilities. Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Und wo genau gibt es eine Zustimmung der höchsten Autorität des Wikiversums, der Community, für diesen Verwirrung stiftenden Unsinn? Gibt es irgendeinen validen Beschluss, dass dieses eine Projekt derart herausgehoben wird, und somit der komplette Rest abgewertet? Und nein, ein Treuhänderbeschluss ist bei weitem nicht ausreichend für so eine Entscheidung. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: Thank you for the clarifications. Do you have an example of what a brand system that uses Wikipedia as a central concept, but not "Wikipedia" as a word, would look like? I think I have some ideas as to how this would work, like using the W from Wikipedia's favicon as a more central theme of the brand. Is that what you mean by this, or am I totally off track with that? I suspect that there are a lot of brand systems that wouldn't include the word, but it's would be nice to know of one example that's under consideration, or similar to what's under consideration.

I think it's a good idea to remove the "What EXACTLY will change" slide from the page entirely, even if a replacement isn't ready. I don't think it's adding to a conversation that has been evolving over the past few weeks.

Finally, I think after this, another question that this page or the FAQ page should answer is the question of why, if the community is so opposed to using the Wikipedia name, why is the Foundation still pursuing options that use it? I don't mean this to be accusatory - I just have to think that there's a reason to pursue it despite the community opposition, and I think the discussion/page/whatever would be served by getting it out into the open. (And note that if you want to just add this to the FAQ rather than replying to this point here, that might be good use of time.) TomDotGov (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: Yes, you describe a valid example of using Wikipedia as a central concept without using the word "Wikipedia". With the Exercise #2 just finished and the schedule a bit altered due to the unusual situation in the World these days, there is nothing much to be shared yet. Hopefully soon. And yes, we will address your question in the FAQ. Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Kannst Du mir zeigen, wo die Community diesen weitreichenden Beschluss abgesegnet hat? Eine solche Umbenennung, und die Konzentration auf allein ein Projekt, sprich die Vernachlässigung der anderen. und das deutliche Zeichen nach außen: "Wir sind nur Wikipedia, der Rest ist unwichtig." sind derart wichtige Punkte, die können nicht einfach von irgendwelchen Angestellten der Community beschlossen werden, da ist sie schon selber zuständig für.

Die Prämisse, die anderen Projekte zu entwerten und nur noch eins zu nehmen, wird aktuell von der Community scharf zurückgewiesen. Das Festhalten an diesem abgelehnten Konzept, das augenscheinliche Ignorieren der massiven Bedenken seitens der Community gegen diese Vorgehen einiger weniger Angestellter, das intransparente, nicht offene, Hinterzimmergekungel mit einer Marketingfirma, die noch dazu in der de enWP wegen unenzyklopädischem Verhalten gesperrt ist, zeugen nicht von einem Willen, der Community zuhören zu wollen.

Wichtig wäre es, diese fehlgeleitete Prämisse asap aufzugeben, und zu einem tatsächlich ergebnisoffenen Verfahren zu kommen. Was hier umseitig bislang geändert wurde, zeugt nicht von dem Willen, tatsächlich ergebnisoffen diskutieren zu wollen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 05:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It's very sad that the WMF still insists on this failed idea of using the brand of Wikipedia for some new/unrelated purposes. Just leave it alone. The insistence on this point shows that the community was very right in rejecting this entire circus months ago and there's no point waiting for new proposals or requests for comments, because WMF is dead set on doing the one thing that nobody wants. Nemo 07:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Es wird kein neues Markengebäude mit dem Zentrum WikiPedia geben

Das nie richtig legitimierte Vorhaben, das Wikiversum neu zu strukturieren, und die Wikipedia ins Zentrum zu stellen, wird von der Community sehr eindeutig abgelehnt. Es wird daher keine neue Markenstruktur mit Wikipedia im Zentrum geben können. Trotzdem wird an diesem gescheiterten Unterfangen weitergearbeitet, es wird weiter Geld an externe Werbetreibende ausgegeben, die längst verworfene Prämisse mit dem Wikipedia als Zentrum steht weiter auf der Vorderseite hier.
Ich habe wenig Verständnis dafür, dass die Minderheit von WMF-Angestellten, die diesen Plan mal irgendwann entworfen hatten, ihn aber nie valide legitimiert haben, weiterhin Geld für das Reiten eines toten Pferdes ausgeben. Wer schlechtem Geld weiter schlechtes Geld hinterher wirft, der veruntreut dieses Geld, auch wenn schon viel Geld für das abgelehnte Unterfangen ausgegeben wurde, rechtfertigt das überhaupt nichts. Wen ein Pferd als tot erkannt wurde, was hier eindeutig der Fall ist, dann sollte es nicht weiterhin von Pferdefriseuren aufgehübscht werden, es bedarf keiner neuen Namen o.ä., es gehört einfach beerdigt, und zwar möglichst schnell und ohne großen Aufwand.
Ich habe den Eindruck, hier wird aus unklaren Motiven versucht, weiter den Eindruck zu erwecken, das tote Pferd ließe sich noch reiten, es wäre gut, weiter Geld in das tote Pferd zu investieren, aber: Der Papagei ist tot.
Mich würden die Gründe interessieren, warum dieses Märchen weiter aufrecht erhalten wird. Warum wird die Realität so massiv ausgeblendet? Warum gibt es nicht anstelle weiterer sinnloser Treffen zu einem abgehakten Problem ein Post-Mortem, warum das so grandios gescheitert ist? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: you have expressed your several points of disagreement dozens of times in this page alone, and by now they are very clear and noted. I believe that these points have been either addressed or they will be addressed in the answers to the questions that I mentioned above. There is really no need to keep insisting on them in almost every new discussion, derailing in most cases from the specific topic of the section. I think this whole Talk page will benefit if you stay on topic in ongoing discussions, or create new sections to bring new topics. This is why I am glad that you have created a new section here.

Then there is the problem of the levels of civility in your posts, which (as I have noted several times) don't contribute to keep a respectful and constructive dialog. I sincerely wonder whether you really expect any answer from Foundation staff when you write a comment like the one you just posted above, as if it was ok to talk to each other this way in Meta. I can say that for me it would be way simpler to comment if you would express your points in a simple an respectful way. Here too I welcome opinions and advice from other contributors with experience moderating discussions.

And to be clear, reading German is not a problem at all. In fact, as a non-native English speaker myself, I like that we can have conversations where everyone expresses themselves in the language they feel more comfortable, thanks to multilingual skills and automated translation. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Aber weiterhin steht die Fake-News auf der Vorderseite, dass sich das neue Markenkonzept um das Wort Wikipedia drehen wird, eine mit überwältigender Mehrheit abgewiesene Annahme. Diejenigen, die das hier an der Community vorbei organisieren, und diese falsche Prämisse am Leben halten, verweigern sich der Realität und hören augenscheinlich nicht auf damit, diese längst im Müll der Geschichte gelandete Sache am Köcheln zu halten. Dieses vollkommene Ignorieren der klaren und eindeutigen Meinung der Community, und das "Ist uns doch egal, was die sagen, wir ziehen unser Ding ungebrochen durch und ändern gar nichts", was auf der Vorderseite aus jedem zweiten Satz atmet, ist das, was ich als Derailing bezeichnen würde.

Ich wundere mich tatsächlich, ob die Foundation angesichts dieses offensiven Ignorierens des überwältigenden Konsenses gegen diese absurde Umbenennung tatsächlich noch ernsthafte Beiträge seitens der Community erwartet, wo diese doch augenscheinlich eh nicht weiter beachtet werden. Das erinnert mich fatal an die Einführung von SuperProtect, wo die WMF, bzw. ein paar einzelne rogue devs, sämtliche berechtigten und gut begründeten Einwände der Community ignoriert haben, und ihr Vorhaben aus reiner Eitelkeit gegen die Community mit brutaler Macht durchgesetzt haben. Ich hatte die Hoffnung, ein solch Antiwikiverhalten wäre jetzt vorbei. Ich hoffe noch immer. Leider zeigt sich hier immer wieder die gleiche Wagenburgmentalität der WMF wie damals. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 05:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just took a look at the concept development website.

• At https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/ Some of the things that did not show up were concepts of "open source", "freeware", "free licence" etc. Maybe they are hidden somewhere if you search, but they should be front and center.
  Also they make statements without any indication of how they arrived at them (no links, no citations), and we presumably are expected to accept this as "truth" · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pbsouthwood: The question was "Who are we? What concept(s) do you think represent the Wikimedia movement?" In the context of this creative process, "open source", "freeware", "free licence"... are definitions, and then these definitions combined together help creating the concepts. From the Concepts page: "Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular definition in its context." For instance, concepts proposed by the workshop participants like Ocean, Galaxy or Universe encompass the quality of "open" that our licensing promotes, whereas concepts like Honeycomb, Nurturing or Builders refer to the aspect of "collaboration" that our licensing allows.
    The concepts were developed at the workshops. The process is now summarized in the Concepts page under "An introduction to concepts", and can be seen in more detail in the reports we posted this week about the Oslo, Bengaluru and online workshops. Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • What we have here is a failure to communicate. I see things like "open source", "freeware" and "free licence" as concepts, which may have specific definitions in specific applications. My understanding of the concept of "ocean" is a broad expanse of planetary liquid. When I see words being twisted into uses that are so far from their ordinary meaning, I see language being used to obfuscate communication. I see the Humpty Dumpty school of language, where a word is claimed to mean exactly what the user wants it to mean, never mind the audience. I see an offense against our principles of clarity and accuracy. I recommend the Wikipedia article for an explanation of the meaning of the word concept, as it is likely the one other Wikipedians will refer to. When you want people to understand you point, it is more effective to use words in a way that is expected. This is particularly important when many of your readers are reading in a second language and will not appreciate flights of verbal imagery. It is inefficient to attempt to communicate when it is necessary to cross check everything against previous statements to ensure that you are following the current non-standard usage for the terminology. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I would say the part of if is that the branding exercises seem to focus on things the community doesn't care about (what looks to me like a logo), then things the community does (making sure that the difference between the Foundation and the projects it supports remains clear). I could see these as sort of making sense as a way of further developing the brand system once we understand the core branding of different parts of the community - but we haven't gotten that far yet. TomDotGov (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem statement (comments)

Once again, thanks to the Foundation team for writing up the problem statement. Some comments on this section:

The 2030 strategic direction is all about growth and evolution. It is not only about continuing to provide access to free knowledge, but about growing and safeguarding that access, and evolving the way that knowledge is delivered. Our strategic direction challenges us to go further and become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge. The Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan is set to grow participation globally, focusing on emerging markets.

This does sort of bring us back to a previous point of revision - the 2030 goals haven't been adopted yet. I kind of suspect that they will be, but I do think that it might make sense to write "The current draft of the 2030 strategic direction..." It does seem like many of our problems here stem from the unfortunate flaws in that process - I don't think that it clearly articulates a future vision, and that's hurting us. If the future plans to "become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge" revolve around hosting informative videos and podcasts, Wikimedia would be a great brand. This project almost feels a bit premature - until we know what we want to be, it's hard to brand.

Not sure there's much we can do here about this - other than maybe making the status of the strategic direction a bit clearer on this page.

Wikimedia branding will not help us in achieving these goals. Explaining who we are is hard. "Wikimedia" is unknown and confusing to the outside world. Affiliates and volunteers often introduce our movement through Wikipedia, because it is a strong, widely-recognized brand. How can the movement make the most of the Wikipedia brand to raise awareness and increase participation in the Wikipedias and sister projects across languages and regions?

With the caveat above, I like everything about this, except for the last sentence. I don't understand why the statement of this problem includes "make the most of the Wikipedia brand". That begs a particular answer, that might be sub-optimal. Given the goals in paragraph one, and the caveats in paragraph 2 - shouldn't the question be:

• "How can our brand raise awareness and increase participation in the Wikipedias and sister projects across languages and regions?"

If not, then I think the "make the most of the Wikipedia brand" clause needs to be justified, rather than simply included. TomDotGov (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: The strategic direction was finalized in 2017. The recommendations for the Strategy 2030 are in draft status. We'll tweak the last sentence hoping to find a better copy. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the change! TomDotGov (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 FAQ Update

(I don't know what the right way to discuss the FAQ updates section-by-section is, so I'm copying entries here.)

Moved the actual point over to the FAQ's talk page. TomDotGov (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(About the right way to discuss an FAQ section, using the FAQ Talk page would be standard practice. If you want to draw attention here ok, you could keep this section header here, move the content to a specific new section in the FAQ Talk page, and link to it. Or something along these lines?) Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll note that the FAQ straight up tells us to discuss it here. That's non-standard. Should that be removed?

I sort of think that the FAQ is a weird document. It's misleading in some places, and has oversights and omissions in others. (I realize this is kind of harsh, but like - there's a map that uses medium blue to represent 'no response', and darker blue to represent 'response') At the same time, it's a place where Foundation employees seem to express the Foundation's opinions. (Or at least the Brand Project Team's opinions.) I don't know if it makes sense for the community to participate in the FAQ, or if there simply should be a disclaimer at the top of that it's the Foundation's opinion, with the actual discussion happening elsewhere. If it's elsewhere, I think that what the FAQ suggests is reasonable, as the discussion would cover the project as a whole and not a particular piece of work product. TomDotGov (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That section of the FAQ didn't aim to redirect FAQ Talk page discussion here, but in any case I have just removed it. If anyone has feedback about content in the FAQ page, please let's discuss it there.

There is the more... meta... point about expectations about information and viewpoints in project pages vs expectations in general documentation pages vs expectations in, say, Wikipedia articles. In an ideal world there would be clear guidelines in Meta to share these expectations (maybe they exist?). But well, the thing is that these are "project pages" and yes, they are mainly maintained by the project team and may reflect the perspective of the project team. If any project pages can be improved, editing and discussing is fine. But the main purpose of any project pages is to support communication and collaboration around that project. There are plenty of project pages in Meta and other wikis, and they don't seem to require any disclaimer.

(This discussion is deviating from the specific FAQ you wanted to discuss. Happy to help reorganizing to have everything in its place). Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll point out that Meta predates the foundation by a bit, and so it's been a community space from the start. (IIRC, it was on the English Wikipedia before it moved here.) I think it's good that the Foundation brings its projects here, and discusses them with the community - indeed, that was explicitly pointed out as something that needed to be done when the Board authorized the pursuit of this project. But I think it's important that when bringing projects to the community, the Foundation does it in a collaborative way, rather than trying to tell the community what it thinks. I mean, when a page just has an unsupported point that most of us think its wrong - our way is to collaborate and fix it. TomDotGov (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was talking about pages of any project run by any team and in any wiki, not just projects maintained by Foundation teams in Meta. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with every wiki, but on the ones I'm familiar with, there is a general principle that pages should not be owned by individual editors or teams of editors (eg, en:WP:OWN). That goes back to the founding principles, which apply here on Meta. I think we need to decide if the FAQ page should be considered content that should undergo the "wiki process", or if it is discussion that belongs on a talk page, where it can be replied to collegially. I'm basically fine with either one, but right now it's sort of in a weird limbo. TomDotGov (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This conversation goes beyond the scope of this specific project, and I am happy to continue it in a more Meta location if there is desire for this.

Meanwhile, is there anything that should be done differently here? Regardless of content ownership, if there are questions addressed to a project (any project), in practice is the team running that project who can better answer them. If any questions or answers can be improved, common sense might be enough to decide whether an edit or a comment in the Talk page is better for each case. If a specific case is not clear, then anyone can proceed either way, and if there is a problem someone will bring it. But this is the regular procedure, right? Qgil-WMF (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that I don't believe that I am addressing questions to a project. The movement is as much a part of this project as the foundation employees are, those who participate on the mailing list and RfC are as important as those who are flown to Oslo. I think there's a fairly irregular procedure going on, since we don't have a good way to communicate with the foundation participants. I agree that the right way to do this is a mix of gaining consensus for edits to the FAQ and asking questions on the talk page, that's the wiki process. TomDotGov (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Unintended positive consequences of current brand strategy

Having followed- and gotten lost in many discussions about this (while I could've probably been more productive working on something else) - something that I would like to see more considered and academic formal comment on, is comparisons to similar "complex" brands - perhaps treating "The Internet" as a brand, or brands with a long tail of non-primary focuses - or brands where the long tail, tilted 90 degrees, is far taller than the common focus (such as many FOSS projects' users' focuses), or perhaps even the perceptions of certain cities, or countries. This points to two unintended consequences - 1) brand discussion not being about brand, but about Wikimedia's processes and the perception and testing of those - has anything useful been learned here, so far? Who is picking up the baton here and making sure that this gets taken where it needs to go. 2) The unintended consequence of the Wikimedia banner - and the common process for engaging with it. For example, in my opinion, the clear message from the current brand is: "Other projects can also be like Wikipedia". This could open the door to possibility. It can also set expectations about how interacting with the brand will be: simple or complex. It might also select for those who are more willing to engage in more than just the superficial - this might impact the load on moderators and other well studied but poorly coordinated and managed things such as dealing with edit wars or perceptions about bias. In short, this might not be about a name at all, but a "health check" - and a blessing in disguise. But I'm no expert on the topic, and I would like to hear where the brand experts stand on this - perhaps experts who specialize in community projects or projects where intellectual property, ownership and captive audiences are not concerns, but where things like organic growth and self-governance are more relevant. Thanks for reading. Dagelf 13:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: from the FAQ - I think the FAQ is essential reading and a good intro. More comments:

What motivates the effort to change the movement brand system?

I think it's fair to say that everyone supports the goal. But why change the whole thing if it's just a problem in some countries? Why not just make it a cosmetic opt-in - and recommended change, in those countries? Also, how did things evolve over time? Is it truly and apples-to-apples comparison to compare countries with the economic development of the US as of 70 years ago, with the modern US? Maybe things will evolve naturally if we give it another 10-20 years, like it did in the first place?

Will it be confusing to use Wikipedia for things that are not an online encyclopedia project? 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!

Sounds exactly like things are now. Except now people have to unlearn what they had already learned... and that sounds more complex. This FAQ item needs examples if it wants to carry legitimacy. Dagelf 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dagelf, indeed the new brand system will be opt-in for Wikimedia affiliations who are critical participants in this projects as they use Wikimedia brands today. This presentation can explain how the idea behind this project developed.

In regards to the brand discussion not being about brand but process. We believe that by understanding Wikimedia’s processes and our global perception we are learning about our brand and how it could evolve. It has also helped us create a collaborative process to be able to create the new identity system with Wikimedian’s who choose to be involved.

We appreciate your input trying to help us with the challenges we are facing with this project and we would like to invite you to join the brand network, the community group helping with this project.--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Selsharbaty (WMF): The WMF's "brand network" is not a community group. Community activities happen on-wiki, not in the WMF's playground or on commercial social networks. (Aside: The fact that the rejected proposal is still being referred to as though it's inevitable is troubling.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Wikimedia communities discuss their projects in many places. That includes on wiki, on social media channels, on calls and in person. We would like to be as available as possible and are happy to be where Wikimedians are. That is why we are using many channels and will continue to. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Selsharbaty (WMF):What's that supposed to mean: Join the brand network on Wikimedia Space and Facebook.

If I follow the first link, which is at least somehow peripheral inside the Wikiverse, I get a message, that I must not see anything, that's something explicitly anti-wiki, as everything has to be in the full open.

The Facebook page is an absolute no-go. Facebook is evil, Facebook is the very opposite of privacy, Facebook blahblah has no value at all in regard of anything within the Wikiverse.

So: Why do you post this useless links, that pretend to be some involvement possibility on the other side at all? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: You can see the group discussions once you join. You can create an account on Wikimedia Space if you don’t have one and request to join the group. All requests are being approved. I understand that you and others may not like Facebook, and that’s why we wanted to have several options for people. Comments shared on Wiki are also being included in the process.--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is the "dicussion" closed at all on Wikimedia Space? I fail to see a single reason for such exclusive and elitist behaviour. And regarding your last sentence Comments shared on Wiki are also being included in the process: On-wiki has not only to be included. it has by definition of the Wikiverse be the centre, and things from outside the Wikiverse may be included. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I finally decided to take a peek inside this anti-wikimedian closed shop, and....found nothing of substance. It's not only a hidden, closed backroom, it's as well pretending to be some discussion venue. There where 7 (in words: seven) threads in this part, with a total of 45 posts. I would not consider this as anything of substance. I don't know about the facebook stuff, as I won't sink that deep to go to this extremely anti-privacy enterprise, but anything theris by definition simply nothing. Facebook blahblah must not be considered at all as any input. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

ping Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Phase two community involvement checklist

March 2020 is the transition from phase one to phase two.

I understand that the community is now being asked to test proposals and direct improvements on naming conventions movement-wide. In particular, we are all being asked to develop and share first round naming convention(s), after a central Brand concept is announced by invited affiliates and community volunteers on the "Brand Network" and the Foundation.

• Question 1: Can any volunteers join the Brand Network or is it by invitation only? If the latter, who chose the invitees, how were they selected, and how many have chosen to join so far? If not, how may I join?
• Question 2: how many central brand concepts are presently under review, and what are they?
• Question 3: what are the components of a naming convention? Is it more than a set of terms and definition pairs(?) according to these guidelines? EllenCT (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey @EllenCT:, answers inline.

I understand that the community is now being asked to test proposals and direct improvements on naming conventions movement-wide. In particular, we are all being asked to develop and share first round naming convention(s), after a central Brand concept is announced by invited affiliates and community volunteers on the "Brand Network" and the Foundation.

We're not at the naming conventions part yet. That's in April. For March we're focused on feedback from the concepts coming out of the workshops.

Question 1: Can any volunteers join the Brand Network or is it by invitation only? If the latter, who chose the invitees, how were they selected, and how many have chosen to join so far? If not, how may I join?

Anyone can join. We were using Wikimedia Space (a WMF-lead in-movement platform) but after leadership decided to close Space we are looking for alternatives. We know many people are happily (or at least tolerate!) using Facebook. As of today the Facebook group has 546 members from 83 countries. A number of which are folks not affiliated with the Wikimedia movement, but professionals and enthusiasts in branding and marketing who are watching and participating in the process with interest.

We also understand some people don't want to use Facebook. We are investigating how to provide a space on Meta or via mailing list for those folks.

You may join on Facebook if you have an account or on Wikimedia Space (until the end of this month). Once we have an alternative available we'll let folks know in both places and here on the project page.

Question 2: how many central brand concepts are presently under review, and what are they?

Over the last few months participants in the seven workshops broke out into small groups and each group came up with a concept. We saw 97 participants from 41 countries create 23 concepts.They reflect more than 58 Wikimedia affiliates including our Board of Trustees. These concepts try to distill "who we are" into a single word to spur ideas and discussion. The groups then built a physical model to visualize the concept and presented on how they came to their concept.

I'm not going to share them with you right this second. That would spoil the surprise. :) We've been working with Snohetta on how to present the concepts that the participants developed and will be sharing them on on brandingwikipedia.org next week. You'll be able to read about and see each concept, indicate your support for the ones you like, and provide feedback and thoughts on each concept. This is what we're doing now. Naming conventions will be discussed in April after the concepts, once Snohetta has an opportunity to review and make a proposal around naming. To get a small taste of what happened at an in-person workshop please take a look at this recent update from Snohetta.

Question 3: what are the components of a naming convention? Is it more than a set of terms and definition pairs(?) according to these guidelines?

Regarding ontology and process. I don't think that particular set of ontology guidelines are applicable here (they're targeted at "the biological and medical domains").

A naming convention is a system of written terms that describe, connect, and distinguish between related things. A helpful example is the US National Parks nomenclature which connects different types of public spaces (using the word “National”) while clearly distinguishing what specific experiences visitors to these spaces would have (e.g. “park”, “monument”, “seashore"). For the Wikimedia Movement, a successful naming convention would make it easy to understand how all movement groups, participants, and projects are connected (movement name) to a common purpose.

Hope that provides some context. Appreciate the curiosity. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): the first paragraph of your answer to my second question discusses a singular central concept which was already widely shared, but they are plural and secret in the second paragraph. Can you help clarify that please? Also worth mentioning is that education is the usually unlicensed biomedical treatment of apraxia, and as such the alternative naming conventions I was able to find were inferior. EllenCT (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT:, The first paragraph discusses how each small group in each community workshop came up with their own concept, to make up a total of 23 concepts that are being summarized now and will be released shortly for community members to like and comment on. When that round of feedback opens, we will be posting it here just like we posted the first exercise. So no, there is no singular central concept. Opinions on the different concepts created will help Snohetta narrow down the options. You can see what the process for creating concepts looked like on Snohetta’s recent post about the concept workshops. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

So it's not Google/Alphabet now, but National Parks/Monuments etc? Do you guys say those things out loud to yourselves in your office before you type? It might help to determine how ridiculous it is. And when WMF member ever mentions a surprise - all I want to do is run for the hills. And I'm being polite when I say this. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lukasz Lukomski: Please edit your comment. That is not what being polite looks like. There's a lot to be frustrated about here, but this kind of comment doesn't help things. --Yair rand (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Facebook is absolutely no option at all, it's far outside the Wikiverse, it's a venue that people with a minimum of privacy conscience would never dare to use, it's an excluding part of the web. It's OK, that some use this for chatter and blahblah, but nothing of value can be agreed upon there by definition, as it's off-limits for any meaningful discussion. As Discuss-Space was closed, the only alternative is here and in the projects themselves. Anyone who treats Facebook as a valid option disqualifies himself immediately with this nonsensical assumption.

Anything has to be done in the full open, any surprise ist by definition something ant-wikimedian. So any discussions, where the outcome was not asap published on-wiki, is not worth anything. There must not be surprises, never.

The affiliates are, as well as the WMF, all just service entities for the real movement, the editors in the broadest sense (authors, fotographers, admins, fact-checkers, tool-programmers, template writers...) are the bosses of the wikiverse. Only they can decide on such issues.

The external website brandingwikipedia.org is as well nothing of value, as it's a) off-site and b) not a cooperative workplace.

Regarding your example with National parks: That's just what's the current naming convention is about: Wiki- is like National, -pedia, -commons, -source are like monument and park.

Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ping Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Structure: the actual underlying problem

The actual underlying problem here, which the WMF board should really have been addressed before allowing the staff to proceed with a vague fishing expedition (or even ordering them to do so), is not the naming, but the scope and interests of the WMF. Now, I know that the official answer is that the 2030 strategy review will determine everything, but in practice that's not what's going on here. In practice, 95 % of the efforts you see within WMF are a simple combination of forces: donations from Wikipedia the cash cow + staffers who only care about Wikipedia + things which get done around (English) Wikipedia because it's easier. This is the problem you need to address: as long as the vast majority of WMF is stuck in a certain mode, no strategy review will ever manage to achieve any substantial change, and any branding exercise will only be a way to put lipstick on a pig.

I've proposed a while ago the first step of a structural change which would allow us to start thinking the correct way about our future: the Wikimedia Trust. The Wikimedia Trust recognises the fact that Wikimedia brands are a very valuable asset, something that you wouldn't tell from the WMF financial statements; but also that this value does not belong to a single corporation in the USA run by a self-appointed board of trustees, because that value was created by millions of contributors to the projects. If we had completed this step, we wouldn't now have the problem of a few persons at WMF trying to decide how to use something that is not theirs, how to decide something that is not up to them to decide.

The second step would be to recognise that some problems have become too big to address in incremental steps. The biggest problem stressed countless times in this branding review is that a lot of staffers at WMF don't feel comfortable working for the Wikimedia projects, they only want to work for Wikipedia. This is sad, but we cannot just wish the problem will disappear. The solution I propose for this problem is to remove all the staff which feels this way, and I don't mean by firing it. The staff which works for Wikipedia only should be split out of WMF, following the precedent of the Wiki Education Foundation. You could call it the "Wikipedia technical services (North America) Inc.", or something similarly descriptive, and make it either an independent cooperative/association/whatever or something controlled by the central holding entity (the Wikimedia Foundation), similar to the way the Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation.

We would finally get rid of this confusion and the board could focus on what the bylaws define as its job, instead of being held back by the understandable instinct of self-preservation of a subset of the entity which only believes in a subset of the entity's mission. Nemo 11:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

1.  Strong support Noé (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
2.  Support I am a huge fan of devolution by spinoff. EllenCT (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Nemo bis: Restructuring the Foundation, as I’m sure you can imagine, is beyond the scope of this project.

What I see as the critical question for this project is whether using our movement’s most well-known brand as a centerpiece can help increase awareness and use of the other projects. The research says yes, some affiliates and volunteers say yes, some affiliates and volunteers say no.

The concern that this strategy may not help the other projects came through loud and clear in the first community review, and it’s a great point that both we and Snohetta are acutely aware of. It’s been explicitly called out in 6 criteria for the movement brand:

Branding should benefit the sister projects so that Wikipedia's international popularity and centrality to our movement are used to improve usage and participation in related projects.

Branding will not be successful unless it does this. The point of the brand is to make things easier for the different parts of our movement. But, just as with any change, it takes some time and open-mindedness.

In April, Snohetta will be presenting a proposed naming convention that everyone will be able to engage with directly. In June, we will see a design proposal. With something more concrete, I think we will all be able to talk more easily about the specifics.

Also, just a note that in my four years at the Foundation, I haven’t met a single person who “only wants to work for Wikipedia.” We’re all here because we care deeply about safeguarding and growing free knowledge for the world. Some of us in the movement may disagree about how to best make that happen, but it’s unfair and inappropriate to ascribe untrue feelings or motivations to people. In fact, I’ve never heard the other projects discussed as much and as often as they are now. The recent decisions around the Community Tech Wishlist and Structured Data on Commons project were a result of the other projects being top-of-mind in the Foundation. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): I think that it's interesting that you're talking about if using Wikipedia as the brand (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "our movement’s most well-known brand") can help improve the awareness and use of other projects. I suspect that the big issue is the one that this doesn't address is the one asked directly by the RfC, but somewhat ignored outside it: - "Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia?", which has been answered by the volunteers with a resounding "Oppose".

It feels that one major problem with such a renaming is that it invites confusion - we'll be asking people to donate "to Wikipedia", and then diverting those donations to other causes, like sending people to conferences, funding affiliates, foundation staff that doesn't support Wikipedia as it is now, and so on. I suspect that the "can" question is pretty clear, but the "should" question is the one that's important to those who donate.

Right now, when people donate to Wikimedia, it's clear that they're donating to the entire movement. I'd say that if the donations are sent "Wikipedia", that would make diverting them to support other foundation projects less acceptable, which is why so many people oppose it. I worry somewhat that a large amount of those resources are being spent on a renaming that can achieve something, but that as a movement we decide shouldn't be used, since we're about more than simply maximizing donations. TomDotGov (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ping Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Added sentence in the page introduction

Hi @TomDotGov: one of the metrics in the community review was confusing and has been apologized for. However, the report also contains lots of direct quotes, themes of discussion, and a guiding set of criteria based on those themes that have captured concerns raised and have been valuable in this process. Additionally, the Board didn't make their decision solely on the report (and much less on that single metric) as Heather stated in her reply.

To avoid further confusion around this metric, and based on other suggestions made, I have added a ref to the metric that was apologized for in the report itself. That way, whenever anyone visits the report, it will be identified.

Final note, as stated by Raystorm, the Board of Trustees supports a continued exploration into evolving the brand system, and is very much active in this process along with individual contributors and affiliates around the world (in fact, the Board just attended a participatory brand workshop last week). For a preview of the types of things that they and others discussed in these workshops, see the recent summary post. The outcomes of these workshops will be documented on the branding hub and also on Meta subpages for your review. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): I think it's fairly reasonable for the sentence to have been removed, but I really don't think it's okay for the WMF to ask people to refrain from editing such pages. The WMF does not get to "own" pages. (For anyone who might start panicking at an expected attempt at subverting community control over Meta: I've been reassured before, including by people inside ELappen's own department, that the WMF wouldn't attempt to own pages, so I think it's safe to assume that the request expressed above is simply based on a mistaken understanding.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: You are right, the implication of ownership was unintended. I have modified my statement. The discussion of project documentation maintenance on Meta is a conversation for another time and place, anyhow :) --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Yair rand (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): I guess my question is - do you think that the report is more correct now, or before you and CKoerner made your edits to it? Right now, the report still reads "✓ 0.6% of informed oppose (57 users oppose of ~9,000 reached)", with a very small link that could easily be mistaken for a reference that supports, rather than contradicts, the statement and the actual correction down at the bottom. That invites people to think that 99.4% of people support, which I believe is a very misleading way of presenting this information, compared to the more usual statement that 20 out of 77 editors who expressed an opinion support this change.

While the board of trustees may not have entirely based their decision on this report, it appears to have been a factor. A Board of Trustees decision isn't final - they can and have changed their minds in the past, and the board composition may change this year. According to User:Pundit, a member of the Board of Trustees, "I have no idea whether we should change the name at all, even less what the optimal final name should be." So I think it makes sense to publicize that the report was inaccurate.

I think it's important to indicated when information is incorrect and in need of correction. Generally, when a newspaper article has a correction, it's placed at the top of the article rather than the bottom. I didn't want to edit the report itself (which was a historic document), but perhaps we could place the correction at the top of the report, and link to it from the timeline in this page, so people who read it before know the correction was made.

Finally, when it comes to ownership, I'll point out that the Wikimedia Movement is explicitly one of the three groups with roles and responsibilities, and the WMF is a second and different stakeholder. TomDotGov (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've changed this complete farce of a sentence twice to the equally nonsensical "✓ 0.2% of informed support (20 users support of ~9,000 reached)", the only difference between this two content-wise bullshit phrases is, that one delivers a message, that supports the of those, who desperately want to use WikiPedia, and the other not. As often with the WMF: Pet projects are shielded from the unwashed masses by those, who have them as a pet project and have the might to so, even without legitimacy. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I kind of think this is unfair, in the other direction. I don't think we should be replacing one misleading statement with another misleading statement. TomDotGov (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

How about striking through the original statistics, and leaving them be for a while? EllenCT (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I kind of feel that the doesn't go far enough to correct the error. There's two basic things that I think need to be done to correct this. The accurate statistic (26% support, 74% oppose) should be presented, and there should be a link on this page that points out the correction, so people who found the inaccurate information can find the correction. I'd suggest that we add "(corrected on <date>)" next to the link to the report on this page's timeline, strike out the "0.6% of informed oppose" section of the report, and add "26% support, 74% oppose" inline. We could drop the ref entirely, since it won't be needed. TomDotGov (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: I see your initial point and I think it’s fair to elevate the clarification. I have changed it from a ref to instead be in-line right below the table, so that it is immediately evident. I don't think it makes sense from a historical standpoint to strike it. The support and oppose numbers are clear in the first table in the section.--ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): While the raw numbers are clear from the first table, the second table exists for a reason. It's processing those raw numbers and using them to determine if the response KPIs were met. Right now, the report still reads like the "Less than 20% of informed community oppose" KPI was met, while the actual numbers show that the KPI was not met. That's not something we're not sure of, the numbers are clear from the table above. And so the correction should include the actual percentages. (I'd also update the 'reviewing affiliates' percentage to match, saying that 80% of reviewing affiliates support, and 20% oppose. That KPI was met overwhelmingly.)

The fundamental way this section is misleading is that it takes a community that opposes the proposal, and presents it as supporting it. The way the section reads right now doesn't correct that. TomDotGov (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Not commenting on the report, just clarifying: when I say that I have no idea whether we should change the name or not, I want to respect the process: collect the external and internal data, see the pros and cons, then conduct an informed and meritocratic discussion within our community, then come to conclusions. Any strong opinions at this point are very premature and irresponsible. Whoever feels very strongly one way or another should make a genuine effort to understand and appreciate the arguments of the other side. Pundit (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The process would be respectable if the question of replacing Wikimedia by Wikipedia was asked as an open question. This is still not clear. The FAQs and presentations still seem to say: Yes, the name Wikimedia will change to Wikipedia. This should be corrected in the sense: The suggestion of the Branding team is to change the name, but this question is definitely open. If this precondition is not met, any participation is useless. Of course, this is not a question of wording but of facts. Is this question still open? We need a clear and unmistakable answer to this question. --Mautpreller (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: The raw support/oppose numbers aren’t correct for that KPI either. The KPI is opposed/informed. Using the numbers you’re referencing would calculate the percentage of support/oppose among respondents, not among those informed. Swapping out the numbers would fundamentally change the KPI, not correct it. We can’t retroactively create and apply a new KPI to a project that has concluded. The other numbers are insightful and clear, and the fact that this particular KPI was chosen for individual editors was apologized for.

Further comments about this probably belong on the report talk page itself, as this is now getting off-topic for this current project. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, because I didn't see it highlighted anywhere; while that KPI was oppose/informed[%] for wikicommunities, it was support/responded[%] (not support/informed) for affiliates... tufor (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): This is the talk page for the entire 2030 movement brand project, and the report is part of the 2030 movement brand project. Since the movement brand project is still ongoing, the report is part of it, and the report is still misleading by claiming the KPI was satisfied, I'd say that it's still relevant to discuss here. This is especially true since this a place where multiple people are actively discussing the report, and so I don't think it makes sense to move it to the report's talk page. This discussion started when you removed my note on this page that the report " inaccurately assessed community sentiment", something that I stand by. If you want to add that back to this page, we could do that.

If we wanted to be pedantic and go with the precise wording of the KPIs, then I'd say that the "20% of affiliates support" KPI wasn't met. (24 supporters of 122 affiliates is 19.7%, which is less than 20%.) I personally think that's kind of silly, and that we should interpret both statistics by only including affiliates and users that felt themselves to be informed enough to respond. Alternatively, it might make sense to just admit we didn't (at the time of the consultation) know the result of the final KPI. Right now, the report is making two positive assertions that are wrong: "✓ 38% of reviewing affiliates support" isn't using the same metric as "20% of affiliates support", and "✓ 0.6% of informed oppose" is based on an admittedly confusing statistic.

I'm not sure that using the definition of informed we used elsewhere would be changing the KPI. Even if it was, then perhaps changing it to something like: "? As it was not possible to determine the number of informed users, it was impossible to evaluate this PKI." What I can't see is a good justification for leaving the report with the uncorrected assertion that the PKI has been satisfied. Since one of the recommendations from the 2030 Movement Strategy process is that we should get better at "Managing Internal Knowledge", it doesn't make sense to avoid amending the report to be correct. (The historical argument is a moot one, as there is a "View history" button at the top of every page.)

Boiling it down, so we make some progress - do you think that the way the two KPIs in the report are presented, with both having been satisfied, is accurate? TomDotGov (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: The KPI as it was defined was met (the blog post alone about the rebrand had 9,880 views), but the fact that this number was selected as a KPI was problematic, as you’ve stated. I have removed the check mark and added more clarity to the note based on your suggestions.--ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): Thanks for your edit, but it still doesn't go far enough. The KPIs are "Response KPIs", and someone that viewed a page but didn't reply anywhere did not produce a response. That's fundamental to the word 'response', and also by the way the project summary page lists four ways to participate in the process: conversations with affiliates, virtual group discussions, talk page posts, and emails. Viewing the web page and then closing it without a response is not listed, as it would be absurd if it was.

Given this, reporting that 0.6% of informed responses oppose is incorrect - it counts non-responses as responses. Valid things to do would be to remove it entirely or to recalculate it based on the methods of response chosen when the project started, but reporting the number with a tenth of a percent precision is simply wrong. The KPI as it was defined was not met, and while it might be difficult to calculate a precise number, the 0.6% number is wildly wrong. (I believe the right number by the KPI-as-written is a smidge below 40% oppose, using the same calculation that was used with affiliates.)

Finally, what happened to the "20% voice strong support" KPI? That appears to have been omitted entirely, but it was present in the summary. I'd think the way that achieving 20% support would be nigh-impossible if pageviews were counted for this KPI, but it looks like it was met (assuming all support responses are strong support) using the metrics given in the project summary. Either way, it appears to have been forgotten entirely. Presenting the 40% oppose and 20% support number seems like it would be the fairest way of reporting the KPIs. Reporting support buy not oppose, or oppose but not support would be misleading, so it's best to report them both or omit both numbers. TomDotGov (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Since there wasn't a response here, I've gone ahead and corrected the report to reflect the KPIs and response methods established in advance. I'd appreciate if people could weigh in on any way my contributions made the report less accurate. TomDotGov (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC) ping Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Please publish contracts and negotiations

Now that the process is clear, this makes more sense as the set up for a push-poll. The Foundation plans to collect hundreds of comments from random people on a couple dozen concepts created by hand-picked community members who were wined, dined, flown to Oslo and such, and all of that data and the money paid for it is going to be used in support of a new brand proposal which has already been largely decided upon, in which the selected community members will then feel like they have a personal investment, which is why the RFC was so upsetting to the Board. The Foundation refuses to accept the idea of even a straw poll for alternate foundation names because it precludes the already decided-upon outcome on which so much money has been spent trying to manufacture the appearance of a new brand scheme which hasn't already been decided upon.

This is conjecture, so prove me wrong: Please publish all purchase orders, requisitions, invoices, contracts, and the emails involving their negotiations, with personally identifiable information redacted. EllenCT (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, compliance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Open access policy is mandatory for all work done with WMF funding, so all works produced by Snohetta as part of this project must be published openly under a free license. --Yair rand (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ping Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Muj(lh)eres latinoamericanas en Wikimedia about the brands

We strongly oppose the new branding system for the movement using Wikipedia as a central name. We regret that the views of the vast majority of users, editors and wikimedians have not been heard and that this path will continue. We are concerned to read that Snøhetta is blocked on En.Wikipedia and we wonder why. You invite movement volunteers to help guide this design process but you don't listen to them, so we feel that it is futile to leave any opinion here as it will not be taken into account. We feel very sad about the feeling that participation is useless. --Jalu (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC) on behalf of Muj(lh)eres latinoamericanas en Wikimedia.

Hi @Jaluj: Thank you for sharing your concerns. While the Board has decided to move forward with the idea of having Wikipedia as a centerpoint based on the assessment of risks and benefits identified by volunteers, what exactly this means and how exactly it will happen is currently being determined by further feedback rounds. See the project process for more details.

Snøhetta was blocked before they were hired by the Foundation for not understanding the COI policy. They are working on resolving the situation.

We definitely recommend that you participate and we assure that ideas and feedback are taken into account. Some of this doubt likely stems from the fact that we should be clearer about what is happening with feedback at each step. We will explain better throughout the project materials how the feedback collected at each point is being used. I will let you know when this is done. The team is also happy to schedule a conversation to hear about your experience in more detail. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking through quite a few places, and I can't find a place where the board says that it has decided to move ahead with "the idea of having Wikipedia as a centerpoint". It looks like the board has allowed it to be researched, without committing to it. The board minutes provide a very tepid endorsement, only say that "The Board raised no objections to the Communications team doing further work on positioning the Wikimedia movement brands as tools for achieving the Wikimedia 2030 strategic vision.", while above, the board statement says "How this will look like at the end of the process remains an open question". None of these statements support the point that "the Board has decided to move forward with the idea of having Wikipedia as a centerpoint", only that it is under consideration. I've been trying to make this page a bit clearer - the Board is endorsing a process and not (yet) a particular outcome. TomDotGov (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: I believe this distinction is being clarified throughout the project materials. The Board has authorized continued work on brand and knows the current project’s position on using Wikipedia as a central concept (among many concepts). They are interested to receive the proposal for review in June. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jaluj: wanted to let you know that the FAQ and other project materials have been updated to address the points you’ve raised. See, for instance, “Why is this project moving forward after the RfC resulted in clear opposition?” “Why does this process utilize off-wiki spaces for discussion and feedback gathering?” (to see full reports of outcomes for off-wiki conversations and how they are being used in the process, I'd recommend having a look at the workshop summaries from Oslo, Bengaluru and the online workshop). “Why is Snohetta blocked on the English Wikipedia?” is also among the recent additions to the FAQ. I think you’ll also find that the general project page is easier to follow. Please let me know if you have any questions or want to set up a conversation. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Snøhetta exercise #2: Who are we?

Snøhetta has just posted their second exercise, which asks “Who are we?” Users can review the 23 concepts that came out of the 8 community workshops held (in Norway, India and online) and select the one(s) they think best represent the Wikimedia movement.

These concepts were developed by 97 participants from 41 nations.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/

As always, feel free to leave feedback on this talk page, directly on Snøhetta's website, on the Facebook page of the Brand Network, or the Brand Network on Space.

Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single concept to inform proposals around naming (expected for April) and around design (expected around May).

Happy reviewing! ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: the 23 concepts have received over 1,000 likes and over 40 comments so far! Thanks to those of you who have already participated. We extended the timeline a bit and will leave the concepts open for feedback until the end of Friday.

On a different note, it has been an unsettling time with the global spread of COVID-19. In light of that, we will be taking a break from exercises for at least the next two weeks. We want to make sure feedback opportunities happen when you all are best able to participate in them, and now priorities should be on taking care of yourselves and your families. The Brand Project team will be reviewing materials and will have more information about any needed modifications to the project timeline in early April. In the meantime, we will continue working on Next steps here in Meta.--ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): Just to check, is that 40 comments per concept, or 40 comments divided over the 23 concepts? TomDotGov (talk)

@TomDotGov: Close to 50 comments and over 1,200 likes total. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism towards Snøhetta exercise #2: Who are we?

97 hand-picked participants in non-open, intransparent, hidden backroom deals, compared with the clear, open and transparent RfC that utterly rejects any rebranding towards WikiPedia. Why do you still go on wasting money on this futile and already rejected enterprise? Why do you still use the completely not suitable Facebook for anything? Why do you link to Space, a venue that is abandoned already?

This looks more and more as just a money distribution scheme for those involved, with as Little as possible disturbance from the communities wanted. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 08:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): The Brand Network on Space "doesn’t exist or is private", and the Facebook group you linked to is a private group. Can you update those to working links? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): - re-pinging, since my previous link was broken. Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Guettarda: They are private groups that anyone can join. In terms of the Space one, you'd need to log in to Space first with your Wikimedia account, and then request to join the group. Space is closing at the end of the month, though, and that group will be moved to a project subpage here on Meta. So best way to get involved in in now would probably be to join the Facebook group (if you feel comfortable on Facebook) or hang on until we are able to get the brand network set up here very shortly. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): Is there some place where I can read this discussions in the interim? I assume that there's a record somewhere, that's not hidden away in a private Facebook group? Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I logged into Space, but I'm still getting the message that group "doesn’t exist or is private". Can you verify that the link works? Even if it's going to go away at the end of the month, that's still more than two weeks away. Guettarda (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, it's a hidden backroom, shielded from the public. They don't want to be disturbed by the unwashed masses. You can get access by asking for it, you will probably get it granted, but you won't see much, as the activity over there is next to zero. I've asked over there, why they are a hidden backroom, but got no answer.

It looks like the main feature of this enterprise: Use as little as possible publicity, discuss in hidden back-rooms, only invite selected proselytes as "community", and just go through with the pre-decided stuff regardless of any opposition, and be it a 90% opposition like here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 05:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Space did exist when I last looked, but not much happened there. It was all a bit experimental, and did not seem to get much traction. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Space itself is open, just a wee bit off-sight because no Promotion was Happening anywhere. Inside space is a closed group for the brand network. There is no justification for this group being a closed shop, closed for the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Guettarda anyone can request to join the Brand Network group in Space here. We are about to close the group in Space (and open a Band Network page in Meta), but if anyone still wants to join, we will process their request.

In relation to the rest of the discussion in this section. If you prefer to participate in exercise #2 in Meta, you can do so just above this section. Beyond this exercise, we with the opening of the Brand Network channel in Meta we want to provide a space for those who want to get involved in the project here. Also, we are going to explain why we are offering safe and moderated spaces to all participants in this process (in addition to Meta) and we will share participation data for everyone to get a better idea of the overall activity in the project. And we will clarify the entire process, which follows a pattern usual in creative group processes from open ended brainstorming to narrowing down and selecting ideas (which explains why at this stage exercise #2 is about selecting concepts from a list, while other types of feedback belong somewhere else). Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"Users can review the 23 concepts ... and select the one(s) they think best represent the Wikimedia movement." Users are asked to select some or all of those concepts, and complete the sentence "I think this concept represents the Wikimedia movement because..." There is no space - much less an invitation - to express contrary views. This is a marketing exercise, not a consultation, nor a meaningful survey, and the results will thus not be reliable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mensch kann nur zwischen verschiedenen, tendenziell eher inhaltsleeren, Phrasen aus einem Marketinggelaberwörterbuch aussuchen, mensch kann nichts von diesen inhaltsleeren Phrasen ablehnen, es können keine eigenen Vorschläge gemacht werden, die über das hinaus gehen, was diese 97 handverlesenen Irgendwas da gemacht haben. Es werden nicht mal alle Antworten angezeigt, das wird auch noch von irgendwelchen undurchsichtigen Zensoren ohne jede Legitimation ausgesucht. Augenscheinlich soll ja nichts veröffentlicht werden, was dem schon längst verabschiedeten Ergebnis entgegen steht. Das ist das komplette Gegenteil einer offenen, transparenten Communitybeteiligung. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC on the Foundation referring to itself as Wikipedia

Because the community consultation apparently did not include this question, and to the extent that it may have been implied, the proposals did not achieve majority support, I have created Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia. EllenCT (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Selsharbaty (WMF) and ZMcCune (WMF): In normal projects in the Wikiverse the RfC would have been closed by now as SNOWBALL, how long will the WMF wait to bury this unwanted project? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

ping Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday we published a summary of the RfC. A few days back we added this point to the FAQ page: Why is this project moving forward after the RfC resulted in clear majority opposition?. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC in Timeline

The request for comment on 'Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia' is one of the clearest expressions of support and opposition as to a potential name change for the Wikimedia Foundation. So far, over 350 users have commented, many with reasoned arguments for and against the proposed changes. Regardless of the outcome, this is an important - probably the most important - source of opinion as to the change. Removing it from the timeline provides readers with a less complete view of the process, both now and from a historical perspective - when the RfC ends and the link up top is removed, without an entry in the timeline there will be no reference to the RfC from this project page.

User:CKoerner (WMF)'s removal of the link hurts the movement, as it makes this page less useful. TomDotGov (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey TomDotGov, I'm aware of the importance of the RfC and there is far more work ahead of us. The comments there are insightful to help guide understanding as we continue through the brand project. I don't want to erase it or anything, I just don't think it belongs in a section defining the scope of the project as defined by foundation work laid out in the annual plan. It's one community initiative informed by the project. Perhaps we can come to agreement for a more encompassing section? Perhaps one where we include other community discussions? I'm helping the brand project by bringing some clarity to what is documented. I will be updating the project page over the coming week with more information - partially informed by the discussions in the RfC. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@User:CKoerner (WMF): Is there a description of the "scope of the project as defined by the foundation work laid out in the annual plan"? At least according to the description on this page, one of the roles of the movement in this plan is "Comments on proposed naming, design, and brand elements to highlight concerns, needs, and suggested improvements". The RfC is how the community is accomplishing this. I don't see any reason why this sort of movement activity should be excluded from the timeline, given that the movement is one of the stakeholders in this project. (I'd also expect that anything Snøhetta does would be added to this page.) TomDotGov (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@User:CKoerner (WMF): Could you understand why your removal of this high response RfC from the project timeline with the summary redundant and not part of planned project timeline (link) might come across to the many people who contributed to it as we at the WMF only care about community input when it suits us? This may not be a WMF planned RfC, but it's there now and whatever one might say, it has unmistakingly become a significant part of the discussion. Is strictly adhering to the planned procedure really more important than transparacy? Shouldn't this RfC at least be clearly mentioned in the timeline, if only for historical reasons? Regards, Wutsje (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

When I said redundant I meant as it was already mentioned at the top of the page. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I noticed that, but what will happen once the RfC is closed? If your updating the project page over the coming week with more information - partially informed by the discussions in the RfC will contain a clear link to this RfC, then all is fine with me. Wutsje (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not pinging earlier Wutsje. I'll be sure to include a link to the RfC. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF):The RfC is imho currently the most important venue here, as without a clear consensus by the community for a rebranding, no rebranding can happen at all. So currently it looks like all efforts of rebranding were futile, as they are met with nearly no support by the highest entity in the Wikiverse, the community. How will you put this RfC on the front page, if not there? It definitely belongs exactly there. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC) OK, I just saw, it's on the top already, fine, but it's well en important part of the timeline, as it defines, whether any more work can be done at all.

ping Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wutsje: Just an update. Right now, the RfC is mentioned in the main project page in several places:

• A banner at the top
• The News section has two entries
  • 2020-04-02: Publication of the summary of the RfC "Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia?"
  • 2020-01-18: Ongoing: Requests for comment: Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia (volunteer-initiated)
• The section The qualities of good Movement branding says "Several of these points have been reinforced in 2020 by the volunteer-initiated RfC Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia"

The timeline discussed here in February was moved to its own page as part of #Simplifying the 2030 movement brand project page. The project team still believes that it is better to identify clearly which activities are organized by the Foundation as part of this process and which activities are independent and volunteer-initiated. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)