Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/23 June 2020 office hours

On 23 June, the Brand Project team held open office hours to answer the remaining questions from the naming convention presentation and to answer additional questions from the room.

[thumb of video to be inserted–having issues uploading the video to Commons]

Questions that were answered


Live questions from the room

  • Is a brand change set in stone? How do you reconcile potential differences in the Executive statement and the Board statement?
  • This change seems to be trading a loss of social capital with volunteers in an effort to gain brand capital. Would you consider that a fair summary? How would you respond to the volunteers that are not happy about a change?
  • The naming options are the same and I'm not sure there's a discussion to be had on this basis.
  • What if we were to just invest in Wikimedia instead? What have we tried on that?
  • What about the community RfC? Why are you bothering with Wikipedia naming?
  • Will there be a follow-up, final vote with the community about the final names?
  • Will the Foundation name change if the community does not want it and the Board wants it?
  • What outreach are you using?
  • If the survey is not a vote but just about collecting feedback, why could a status quo option not be included in the survey?

From the naming convention presentation

  • How will these not cause confusion between the Foundation and the Projects? (see FAQ)
  • How will projects benefit from being tied to the "Wikipedia" name? I get that there should be a more unified identity for the movement as a whole, but how do the other projects stand to benefit? Would they lose out to Wikipedia because the Wikipedia brand will become even more prominent? (see FAQ)
  • Question about the survey for groups, do we provide one survey for the group as a whole? If so, how to deal with very different or even opposite opinions?
  • In a result-focused mind, how would you technically describe Alphabet's move? They left aside an even more famous name than Wikipedia. The opposite move, in a hunt for results
  • Have you thought about changing the visual language of all the sister project logos, and not change the name Wikimedia. So that it all looks like it's a part of the same thing?
  • We don't have time today, but perhaps in the next Q&A the team is going to describe how they are going to process all the survey input and decide a recommendation. How transparent is that going to be?
  • Before deciding to opt-in my affiliate needs a legal consult, whose outcome might be that it is not suitable for us to opt-in. Would the WMF provide financial support for that?
  • Now that is clear that all the three naming options include the word "Wikipedia" for the Foundation, how is the RFC going to be calculated in the metrics?
  • Could "Wikimedia" go through the same professional polishing ?
  • Do you think that fully volunteer-based affiliates might consider the legal processes as a new burden and challenge as legal processes are really tough in some countries? What is your feedback on those problems?
  • Where is the option completely without wikipedia? Why was none such option included?