Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia

Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.


At 24 minutes and 40 seconds in, during this Wikimedia Foundation branding proposal presentation of April 11, 2019 used as the basis for the community consultation, Zack McCune, User:ZMcCune (WMF), says, "In this proposal, what changes? Well, Wikimedia names will become Wikipedia names, which would mean we would retitle the movement, our affiliates, the Foundation. To what? That has not yet been specified. So the question here is, should we explore that? ... We should not assume that it is Wikipedia Foundation." [emphasis added.] In contrast, the project summary says, "What is the proposed brand strategy? ... Exploring new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups to use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia." Similarly, Zack's February 2019 "Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030" states, "the proposed brand strategy ... would create an opportunity for renaming the movement, affiliates, and the Foundation with 'Wikipedia' names."

BackgroundEdit

The Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project plan states as a foregone conclusion that the endpoint of its process will include calling the Foundation and affiliates by the name Wikipedia, admitting, among other obvious issues, that "Wikipedia France," will likely be confused with the French Wikipedia. The community consultation it cites in support apparently did not clearly include this information when it was put to its respondents, and therefore it is not representative of authentic community sentiment on the question. To the extent that the question may have been implied, community agreement with the proposals did not achieve majority support.

QuestionEdit

Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?

CommentsEdit

SupportEdit

  1. Support the question as (poorly) worded. Of course it is acceptable. They can do what they want. It is not a good idea, however. Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support The Wikimedia movement has long had a problem with what to call itself, and going with 'Wikimedia' rather that 'Wikipedia' has caused significant brand confusion, given how well known 'Wikipedia' now is. As an alternative, we could always rename 'Wikipedia' to the 'Wikimedia Encyclopaedia'... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support As I have written below the foundation should be allowed to choose just as I believe other movement entities should be allowed to choose. I would have gone with "Wikipedia Canada" when we incorporating that chapter years ago if it was than allowed. Well we are a little late I still think giving movement entities the option is useful. By the way I am not 100% sure on what has been decided with respect to branding. I am not convinced regarding the concerns of this deemphasizing the sister projects. English Wikivoyage for example uses in their tagline "The official, non-commercial sister site of Wikipedia for sightseeing" to capture people's knowledge about Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support This is going to lose, but only commons and Wikipedia projects have been successful. The others have not been. We should capitalize on a good brand, not a brand people haven’t heard of. This would be common sense at any other organization. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support Yes of course, I see no obvious issues that Wikipedia France will be confused with French Wikipedia.The Living love (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    The two are already confused and the chapter receives lawyer letters demanding to remove content X of article Y on a regular basis. Renaming "Wikimédia France" to "Wikipédia France" will definitely make it harder to explain that they are two separate entities and that the chapter does not have an editorial role (or legal responsibility.) -Ash Crow (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    People already do confuse, and I've seen a guy came to WMKR event to complain about the "Wikipedia admin"'s action. — regards, Revi 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Ash Crow and Revi thanks for your responses, but I still don't see anyone confusing between France and French.The Living love (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    @The Living love: You have been explained by Ash Crow, who is involved in Wikimédia France and therefore has first-hand knowledge, that in fact, there is already confusion. "The chapter receives lawyer letters demanding to remove content X of article Y on a regular basis" sounds pretty clear to me. Renaming the chapter to Wikipédia France would be therefore be unhelpful as it would foster instead of fight this confusion. Other chapters have similar experiences. So, although you are free to have your personal opinion, that you "don't see anyone confusing", the facts beg to differ. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    @The Living love: Think in other languages, please. -Theklan (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Support Almost any time I say "Wikimedia" to people outside the movement, I get confusion in response, until I say "Wikipedia". It would be good to align our internal naming with those expectations. --Deskana (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Support Yes if "Wikipedia" is associated with the suffix "Move". "Wikipedia Move" sounds like "movement" and will concern everything which is related to real people, real money, real technology, etc... The basic name will then refer to the Foundation ("Wikipedia Move"). The other entities will add a second suffix after "Move" : the Chapters ("Wikipedia Move xxxx (country)" exple : Wikipedia Move France), the User groups ("Wikipedia Move Users xxxx"), technology (Wikipedia Move Tech"), etc... The name "Wikipedia" alone (without the suffix "Move") will concern all the virtual online activity (online encyclopaedia, anonymous online contributors) (means : no changes for actual Wikipedia). "Move" can be shortened in the logos and short name as "M". Exple: "Wikipedia M". In the acronyms, "WPM" instead of former "WM". Exple : "WPMFr" instead of former "WMFr". The "M" refering to "Move" would also remind to the former "Wikimedia". It is also very simple to change the "WM" in "WPM". Idea is from my own and given personnally. --Waltercolor (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    "Wikipedia Move"? Bad move. — Bob Saint Clar (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    This doesn't work in the other 308 languages. Sorry. -Theklan (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Theklan: It has been former called "Wikimedia" in the other 308 languages, right ? So invent anything with "M" in each language, and you get it : "WPM". Don't tell me that the letter "M" doesn't exist in any language. You just have to create a short name in "M" after "Wikipedia" in any language to tell that this "M-something" means you are in presence of the "real life" Wikipedia space, that one with people, offices, money, technology... and not the virtual online one. And yes, it works in 308 languages, cause there is no language without "M" and cool short "M" words. It doesn't need to be "Move". Be flexible. The concept has to work. ;-) --Waltercolor (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    It was not about Wiki[mp]edia, it was about the concept "Move". Completely anglocentric. -Theklan (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Theklan: Oh, you overreacted about "Move" and so my concept of a "Wikipedia M" versus "Wikipedia" just falled in a cosmic hole ! :-) It's the first time I "kill" someone with an anglicism (I usually speak french). I really wonder which other solution will be universal. Generally people choose latin name for brands, because it sounds somehow "neutral". So I propose "Wikipedia Modus". Notice that there is a big difference between Wiki[mp]edia and "Wikipedia M". You can prononce the latter one. --Waltercolor (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    So... since there are only a few options, help me choose: "Wikipedia Coyote/Wolf", "Wikipedia Apes", "Wikipedia Pastry"... or "Wikipedia Butter"? Seb az86556 (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Weak support The Wikimedia brand is heavily confusing for pretty much everyone. When you are meeting a partner and saying you are coming from Wikimedia, you have to explain that in reality you are coming from Wikipedia. When people are contacting a Wikimedia affiliate, in reality they expect to get an answer from Wikipedia. When I tried to make a donation to a Wikimedia chapter, the bank tried to send my donation to a Wikipedia chapter, thinking that I made a mistake. Thus yes, our Wikimedia brand is very confusing and not recognisable. What should be done however is a clear naming and legal framework that would satisfy both San Francisco, sister projects (which will really become known primarily as Wikipedia sister projects) and movement affiliates. Given that this is not clarified yet, my support is weak, although the idea in itself is not so bad — NickK (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    The reality is not that you are coming from Wikipedia if you represent the WMF. The WMF doesn't have editorial control over any Wikipedia and if you claim you are speaking for Wikipedia you are likely going to mislead the other person into thinking that you speak for an organization that has control over the policies of Wikipedia. ChristianKl❫ 16:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: The truth is that WMF definitely has control over all policies of Wikipedia. They hardly ever use it, delegating almost everything to us, the editing community, but it perfectly has a right to impose policies (like they did with Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment) — NickK (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think most people who are staff at the WMF share your opinion that they have editorial/policy control over these projects (or at least they're smart enough to not mention it publicly). That's because the WMF didn't build these projects (nor does it have the funding or manpower to maintain them), in fact their org started years after Wikipedia went live. Not only is the link you shared an example of how they have to work with the projects to come to new solutions, it's an example of how they would have not been able to keep them enforced without lasting community support. The paid editing solution was widely supported by the established Wikipedia communities, so we enforce that policy... however, that policy has no community backing at Wikimedia Commons, and so they do not enforce it. So, sure the WMF can make strategy all they want (sometimes even create great ideas)... but, if they fail to get the community behind them, those strategies are worthless (much like the WMF would be without any of the content our volunteers have created over nearly two decades). Coffee // have a cup // 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Control is about having the power to do things. WMF currently doesn't have the political power to push through policies against the community even through it tries from time to time. Choosing a wording that gives that appearance is problematic because it feels like a power grap from the WMF. ChristianKl❫ 08:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Support --Hadi (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  10.   Support I'm sick and tired to explain a difference that is mostly inexistent. Wikipedia has been organically cannibalizing the other projects since at least 2010. It's not the foundation that pushed for that, but the communities, starting with en.wp. The rebranding simply acknowledges and existing reality. Strainu (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's surely why the WMF took almost a decade to focus the Annual Whishlist in the other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia cannibalized the other projects because no leadership in the WMF has decided yet to finally invest in infrastructure & interface to make them a real free knowledge competitor. Who's gonna edit projects that are not adapted for their purpose and that look like 2005? Not even Wikibooks has a functional tool to pile pages nor Wikisource has revision systems that do not include loads of wikitext. It's senseless investing in branding or marketing when the projects and values that sustain them are being completedly dismantled in purpose. An entire team of staff developers completely isolated from the real needs of volunteers. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 19:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  11.   Support First off, its important to note, since I believe a lot of people are misinterpreting what this RfC is about, as pointedly stated in the caption for the video at the start of this page and in the question itself, this isn't a RfC on whether the Foundation should rename itself to "Wikipedia". As far as I can tell, no one is calling for this.
    With that out of the way, I think Waltercolor's proposal is quite reasonable. For the good of the movement, i.e. the sibling projects at large, I think it is acceptable for the Foundation to use "Wikipedia" as some sort of reference for itself. This is because most of the other projects are invisible to the average person. The Foundation using a little wiggle room about its name in order to get people's attention and inform them about other projects, to me, is justified means to achieve the end of greater visibility and participation. Lastly, going back to what Waltercolor said, the term ideally shouldn't be used by itself, but in conjunction with something else. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  12.   Support per TonyBallioni and Strainu and to narrow the gap between WP − WM and to lessen the confusion in outsiders about the difference. Local chapters should decide for themselves, whether changing their name is a benefit. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 07:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  13.   Support Je suis pour, c'est une clarification bienvenue avec tous ces noms proches (Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Mediawiki, Wikimania), et je n'ose même plus prononcer le mot Wikimedia à mes proches pour expliquer l'organisation, car ils sont perdus sinon. J'utilise déjà au contraire Wikipedia pour parler de tout (y compris les projets sur lesquels je participe plus, comme Wikisource), c'est plus simple, et au moins, tout le monde comprend. --Consulnico (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Google translation: "I'm for it, it's a welcome clarification with all these close names (Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Mediawiki, Wikimania), and I don't even dare to pronounce the word Wikimedia to my loved ones to explain the organization, because they are lost otherwise.
      On the contrary, I already use Wikipedia to talk about everything (including projects in which I participate more, like Wikisource), it's simpler, and at least everyone understands." ~~ by Consulnico above
  14.   Strong support. The online encyclopedia is central and essential to more or less all other projects and it is all user's most prominent and well known interface. Eissink (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
  15. Support. Wikimedia is a confusing name for the general public. They will barely note this change. For us, users it will not change the way we work on the projects. Ellywa (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  16. Support. Branding clearly matters, especially in online projects, and it's not unreasonable for the WMF to pay consultants for advice on what would work better. In cases where simplifying to just using "wikipedia" then it seems reasonable to do so, with further specificity clarified afterwards. Google maps isn't a search engine to find maps, but people know that 'Google is something to do with searching', similarly people know that 'Wikipedia is something to do with free information'. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  17.   Support I think it's a very good idea. Zmiany Solarne (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  18.   Strong support Very good idea. Organizes the current chaos. Currently, people who do not know the foundation do not know what Wikimedia is. The name "Wikipedia" is justified here. She is known and liked. You immediately know what's going on. Unification of names in the organization can be very good. Everyone associates the name Wikipedia. Nobody associates the name Wikimedia. We must be recognizable to represent the project responsibly. In my opinion, you need to standardize the names. One idea - one name. MOs810 (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  19.   Support – this is controversial? This is opposed by many? I'm genuinely surprised. Wikimedia is, and has always been, primarily about Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons could easily be renamed to Wikipedia Commons. There is no need to complain about a reasonable attempt to reduce existing, repeatedly experienced confusion. ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  20.   Support – a bit sad. The idea is good. But I can understand, that people think, our problems are elsewere. For example I've tried to write this here since a longer time, but it was not possible because the projects were not accessable. Abd when I see the other future plans, I also understand, why people don't wanna change things, even it's a good idea. The trust in the WMF, Wikimedia or Wiipedia Foundation, is widely vanished. So here are those results. A roof organization that only show mstrust to his volunteers earns mistrust. What happens here is housemade. And we know, at the end the WMF will do whatever they wanna do. Because they think since a longer time, that the communities who made all this are not the right ones. We're just in the way to a submissive and grateful new community. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  21.   Weak support; I don't see a problem (but also no big benefit): what is important is how the Foundation acts, not how it is called --Qcomp (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  22.   Support - I think it's probably a good idea to focus on the most successful brand when naming things. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  23.   Strong support „ordinary readers“ (= no regular contributor to any Wiki(p/m)edia project) often get confused about these different names. As Wikipedia ist one of the best-known brands around the world, changing the foundations name to Wikipedia would increase it's publicity. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  24.   Strong support I spend a lot of time and energy training teachers and other users on how to contribute to (and use effectively) Wikipedia and Wikimedeia Commons. Most people know or have heard of Wikipedia but almost nobody has heard of Wikimedia. Every year, during the fundraising period, people who know that I do a lot of work with Wikipedia ask me if Wikimedia has anything to do with the encyclopedia that I love... I then have to explain the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia at which point they are no longer interested in donating. They may have learnt something that most people do not care about but that is all. GastelEtzwane (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  25.   Support I generally support a rebrand in this direction. While I personally do not have anything against Changing "Wikimedia Foundation" to "Wikipedia Foundation", I do think that a better name would be a neutral one, but still able to give similar impression to the public. For example, "Wiki Foundation"?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  26.   Support I'd say Wikipedia accounts for about 19 twentieths of the traffic on all Wikimedia-owned ThingsTemplate:TM. Cortex128 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  27.   Support I'm not sure, given the amount of 'political' dialogue going around here, how will this BRAND change reflect in any way on the current power dynamics between the WMF and the communities. Internally (i.e. within the Movement), the difference between the Foundation and the community will be ever so vivid, as I'm pretty sure it has never stemmed or will stem from a superficial difference of names. Externally, people rarely understand the difference between the Foundation and the community: for those who do, I also don't see why the name change would confuse them. As far as I'm concerned, in the terms of my local community, it's incredibly easier to advocate for our affiliates' work with the re-branding taking effect --Abbad (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC).
  28.   Support, but only with "Foundation" in it. If WMF has an actual branch operation in France, then "Wikipedia Foundation France" is the obvious way around any confusion with "French Wikipedia" (Wikipédia française in actual French).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: The Wikimedia chapters are independent organizations, not branches of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia France is an organization which supports the Wikimedia projects, much like the WMF. --Yair rand (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    Then this RfC was intentionally misleading (much more so that what it is complaining about), in implying that the French Wikipedia would be confused, should WMF's "Wikipedia" name-change plans go forward, with an entity called "Wikipedia France". The pile of opposition below is thus an obvious false consensus produced by blatantly bullshitting about the nature and consequences of the debate, right from its opening words. I am not amused.

    I remain in support of the WMF's name-change plans for basically all the reasons given above: the current situation is what is confusing, and consolidating the "branding" to a single world-recognized, high-good-will, and strong-positive-association identifier, WikiPedia, is a sensible move. This naming stuff has jack to do with power dynamics between the foundation itself and the Wikipedia (and Wiktionary, etc.) editorial communities. If anything, renaming WMF to Wikipedia Foundation or something like that would impede WMF's self-delusional bifurcation. If we're all WikiPedia henceforth, it will be hard for WMF – with its almost-everyone-came-from-software-companies board and staff, nearly none of them with a background in nonprofit administration – to continue misapprehending the editorial community as basically a userbase playing a game/forum the "company" is publishing. WMF has to wake up to the fact that it is a major nonprofit/NGO with the largest public-interest constituency in this history of humanity; it is not a software/services publisher with a customer base. I've been saying this for almost a decade now (based on direct experience with similar organization, like EFF, that were stuck in the same confused limbo in the organizational lifecycle). The longer WMF takes to figure out what it really is, the harder it's going to be for Wikipedia to be future-proofed (I don't mean against collapse 5 years from now, but 15 or 25 or 35, after a long slide into "no one wants to work on Wikipedia unless they have some third-party agenda they're being paid to push").
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC); slightly revised 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

    @SMcCandlish: To clarify, the WMF branding proposal does include renaming chapters (subject to their approval) to names like "Wikipedia France". --Yair rand (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's still a red herring. If they're independent organizations, they can call themselves whatever makes sense to them. If WMF imposes a consistent naming system on them, there is no rationale for us to future-predict that WMF will settle on names that are obviously confusing. This RfC is basically an argument to emotion and straw man and slippery slope fallacy combination: it lays out a scenario of confusion designed to raise RfC respondents' ire and alarm, but does not represent any proposal that WMF has actually made, it just assumes that WMF would choose the stupidest option possible at some future date. It's much more sensible to assume that WMF, if they became the Wikipedia Foundation, would instead use a chapter naming system like "Wikipedia – France Chapter", "Wikipedia Chapter France", or any option other than the obviously confusing "Wikipedia France". Part of the "assume good faith" principle is "don't assume severe brain damage".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  29.   Weak support AFAIK, the rationale for a brand change involves more how we are perceived outside the movement rather than within the movement --it is mostly about external awareness and outreach. Data that have been put forward by the WMF do support the rationale, as Wikipedia awareness is a given, and a communications strategy could work upon it to improve support, recruitment, etc. My sense is the community could quite easily adapt to this name change --which involves a cost, that I understand might be significantly lower than the benefits associated to this change. My sole concern, and this is why my support is relative and not in full, is discontentment within the community, particularly in a context in which the WMF could have done a better job conveying what the perception of the community about this brand change was and setting up a general, purposeful discussion with Wikimedians. I fear the way this has played out right now will lead to unnecessary disruption and conflict. Anyway, with a proper process and in a slower pace than what was probably envisioned at first, I think this original methodological pitfall does not override the merit of the proposal by the WMF. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Joalpe: What evidence is there that the current name has had any negative impact for support, recruitment, etc? I find the assertion highly dubious. I've occasionally had conversations with bits of the UK government on policy-relating things of concern to Wikimedia. I have never had any trouble. The Wikimedia name is actually useful in this regard, because it signals that WMF handles more than just Wikipedia. Jheald (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Case in point: one of the discussion point in the recent EU copyright directive requirements for automatic image filtering at upload time. Pro-directive MEPs would sometimes come back to us and say "Okay, but there will be a carve-out for images being used in an online encyclopedia. Doesn't that sort things out for you?" The Wikimedia label is and was a useful reminder that we are concerned about more than just Wikipedia -- such as images on Commons that may not be being used in any Wikipedia, but are there as an image bank in their own right; and Wikidata, which is now fulfilling up to 10 million queries a day. Often the first message we need to get over is: we do more than just building an encyclopedia, and we stand for aims and ambitions that are more than just building an encyclopeda. Having a name that is not Wikipedia is helpful for this. Jheald (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  30.   Support Wikimedia is a complex movement and with a big change like this, many affiliates (and smaller communities that are yet to get organized as affiliates) might not be able to carry out the messaging in the same scale. So, it might be wiser to ensure that the transition is made smooth and the larger community is informed on a regular basis and the reflection of the changes are tracked to some level. It should not look as if the Foundation leads the whole branding process but does not reach out to the community enough once the branding changes are made. As a volunteer community (and in fact because of many small-to-large communities that might not talk to each other on a regular basis), the adoption of a change in this scale would take time. Foundation needs to work closely with the community for this post-branding process. --Psubhashish (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  31.   Support This would end a lot of confusion, since no-one outside the movement has understood the difference between wikimedia and wikipedia anyway. Donors are giving their money mainly because they appreciate and wish to support the encyclopedia. This should be acknowledged and reflected by the foundation's name as well as by its actions. Wikipedia/Wikimedia France and French Wikipedia will continue to be confused, regardless of the name.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  32.   Support a general principle: we need to have a branding discussion, and the community should engage in finding a goo direction. "Wikimedia Foundation" is quite fuzzy and confusing for the outside world. Still, ways to keep different projects' identities are needed. Pundit (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Just to make it clear, because some people may not know. Pundit and Doc James (third comment in this section) are current members of WMF Board of Trustees. tufor (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  33.   Support Badly made rfc. My proposal is "Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation", to use the well known "Wikipedia" on the one hand, but also make clear it's not only about Wikipedia --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 23:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  34.   Support Since Wikipedia accounts for a majority of the traffic however something should be added after it to account for the other projects. Bobherry (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  35.   Support i can live with both options. --Ghilt (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

  1.   Oppose. The drawbacks from the likely confusion are too substantial relative to the contemplated advantages. EllenCT (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Strong oppose As stated by EllenCT, this would result in quite a bit of confusion, ranging from simple brand confusion to an even larger torrent of complains in the English Wikipedia helpdesk and teahouse whenever donations come around. It even has the possibility to confuse long-term users, who would end up potentially mixing up the names. --Moonythedwarf (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. No.MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose I believe it would create a lot of confusion, and is a terrible idea. — Jeblad 20:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. No The research report makes clear that people associate "wikipedia" with the encyclopedia. You can't fix the finding that "Wikimedia is less understood" by using a name that is well understood to be something else. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose This is a terrible idea, members of the community are surely not the same as Wikimedia employees. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 21:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose This is a fundamental waste of money and leadership time, at a time when we desperately need more resources in engineering and development (cf this twitter thread). The name of the foundation fundamentally doesn't matter; "Wikimedia" is good enough. Changing it to "the Wikipedia foundation" doesn't help the sister projects (Wiki Commons, Source, Data, Voyage); misrepresents the scope of what the movement is trying to do; and also misrepresents the relationship between actual WP and the Foundation; it would simply create confusion, as Jeblad and Schazjmd have well expressed immediately above. The proposal has been met an overwhelming lack of enthusiasm from the community, and majority opposition from all groups of contributors who have bothered to respond (as opposed to WMF's pet payroll vote). It should be killed with fire. Jheald (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose It was clear from the very beginning that this is not a good idea--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  9. Eww. GMGtalk 21:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Misrepresents what the actual goals of the Foundation are and overemphasises Wikipedia to the detriment of the other Wiki<foo> sister projects. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  11.   Strong oppose Wie drüber, sie Stiftung soll für alle Projekte da sein, nicht nur für die Wikipedia. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Wenn schon, dann richtig, aber eigentlich sollten diese arroganten Monolinguisten das schon selber machen. Übersetzung: Like above, the foundation should be there for all projects, not just the Wikipedia. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose per all of the above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  13. No! Wikipediaversity/voyage? Wikipedia Usergroup XXX? These sounds odd and lack of clarity of direction WMF is going into. I will hope these proposals will end and the foundation focuses on more practical things to help the editing community / outreach community out, diluting the importance of certain projects aren't one of them.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  14.   Strong oppose. As I stated previously: 1) Having "brands" like "Wikipedia Travel" explicitly dilutes the notion of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and help confuse the clueless hoards who already struggle to understand this concept further; 2) Renaming Wikivoyage etc. to Wikipedia X reinforces the idea that these projects are secondary/afterthoughts/also-rans/distractions when they should be first class citizens; and 3) exacerbating the problem where the clueless hoards believe the foundation has a greater control over Wikipedia content than they already do, that Wikipedia is the only thing they do and, of course forking out more donations (which is the underlying reason for the rebranding, not to fix the actual problem). I can now add to that 4) "Wikipedia France" != "French Wikipedia". The WMF is spaffing money up the wall yet again. MER-C (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  15.   Oppose: A rebrand of the Foundation seems somewhat confusing. While Wikipedia is afaik the most recognisable project, a lot of stuff is run on other sites like commons or wikidata, which aren't encyclopediae, but have their own goals. The current Wikimedia brand seemed like a good umbrella term for all the different projects. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  16.   Strong oppose Evidently a bad idea, per all written above. --Schniggendiller (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  17. What does the organization behind Firefox call itself? Hint: not Firefox. Feminist (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  18.   Strong oppose - @GreenMeansGo: is absolutely correct below. Getting people to understand the difference (whether in OTRS or real life) between WMF and Wikipedia is tough as it is. This would make it impossible. I'm also at a loss on why does the WMF need better (but less distinctive) branding? it's primary function is to support the Wikimedia projects, and it doesn't need to sell itself to do that. Personally I thought the rebranding exercise made it very clear indeed we didn't want anything like this, but I'm game to make it very clear. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  19. big   Oppose: it leads to confusion, and "media" and "pedia" have a big differents to its meaning. If there is a problem with the Wikimedia term, strengthen the Insight. It does not matter if Wikipedia is better. I strongly agree that Wikimedia because is covered by all forms, all media. All medium of transferring free knowledge. --  ShiminUfesoj   15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  20.   Strong oppose. The sister projects like Wiktionary or Wikibooks would be in minor advantage. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  21. For very good reasons, 92% of the community rejected the proposal. The fact that the staff then lied to the board about the results does not bode well. The WMF has no mandate to co-opt the Wikipedia brand, nor to present itself under Wikipedia's identity, nor to sideline all sister projects. --Yair rand (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  22.   Oppose: I would just cause lots of confusion. Mainly what Nosebagbear and Feminist said. Bad idea. (However, the WMF can do what it wants.) Also renaming any brand causes a lot of confusion and too many things will need to be replaced. BEANS X2 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  23.   Oppose: --Udo T. (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  24.   Strong oppose: Very bad idea. Branding the foundation in a way that (at first sight) implies Wikimedia foundation = Wikipedia? Confusing if not (not imply intentionally) misleading. And might be misinterpreted as the other projects being of lesser importance. --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  25.   Strong oppose: Quoth the bear: "Personally I thought the rebranding exercise made it very clear indeed we didn't want anything like this, but I'm game to make it very clear." Levivich (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  26.   Strong oppose. Wikimedia is more than just Wikipedia. The sister projects have a distinct identity separate from Wikipedia, and doing a completely unnecessary rebranding like this only increases confusion and diminishes the importance of the other projects. The unique identity of the sister projects needs to be reinforced, not suppressed. DraconicDark (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  27.   Oppose per above. -FASTILY 04:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  28.   Oppose. This was proposed on the Wikimedia mailing list and at Wikimedia brand survey in 2007, and was rejected in both discussions. This was overwhelmingly rejected by the community at Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review. It should still be rejected, and I'll repost my response from the Community Review:
    It's fine if the Foundation wants to increase knowledge of the Wikimedia brand, or wants to consider some novel brand. However for the following reasons, and reasons listed by others, the foundation shouldn't usurp 'Wikipedia'.
    • Our projects are made of people, and casting the other projects as subservient to Wikipedia would be damaging.
    • The Foundation, and the other projects, are not encyclopedias. KentuckyFriedChicken concrete or PayPal doughnuts or Netflix toiletpaper would be atrocious branding. That kind of branding conflict causes cognitive dissonance.
    • The proposal creates disruptive confusion between the Foundation and the existing Wikipedia. It becomes more difficult to discuss these very distinct entities.
    • None of us has a crystal ball for the future, but in time some other new or existing project could very well displace Wikipedia as the most notable project.
    • Again none of us has a crystal ball for the future, but I can see potential cases where the Foundation would want or need to spin-off Wikipedia. Alsee (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  29.   Oppose per many reasons already stated above. (I reserve the right to add additional reasons if I think of them in time, but the reasons above are already sufficient and compelling)
    • To clarify, I oppose as a Wikipedian, as a Wikivoyager, and as a contributor to Commons and to a lesser extent, other projects · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  30.   Oppose There's already enough conflation of volunteers and staff amongst the public. We don't need to worsen it. The Foundation needs to be known as such and as differentiated as possible from the volunteers and the things which anyone is welcome to contribute to. It's also insulting to all of our sister projects to make this suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  31.   Strong oppose - I'm genuinely failing to see what problem this is trying to fix. The reason the Foundation is not very known to the public, is because almost no one needs to know that the Foundation exists to go about their daily life. Wikipedia is very well known because it is one very particular thing: a free encyclopedia (that virtually everyone with an internet connection uses). The parent org Alphabet isn't known, yet its main product everyone uses is: Google. Google Cash, Google Maps, etc., are all probably easier to mention to people who don't use them, but that isn't an argument for forcing our sister projects to have to be under the "Wikipedia Foundation" (and I'll note YouTube hasn't been renamed Google Video). There are reasons in each community why they didn't want to describe themselves as part of the encyclopedia... using a top down approach to fix that is also not a good idea.

    Further, as a Wikipedian, I think it important to note the Foundation should not be giving off any impression that it speaks for the Wikipedia community. That is all I can possibly see coming from this... including people like the WMF CEO becoming the "Wikipedia CEO". Sorry, we don't have a central authority above our community and we never will (owning the servers isn't something the Foundation should be holding over any of our heads either, especially considering that's only because people donate millions every year because they like the volunteers' work).

    Doc James' and other's arguments here about how people have sometimes hoped for the simplicity of a more centralized organization when they're referring to something other than Wikipedia, only further amplifies to me how such a title change can be misused. Branding is important, sure... but as it stands right now our branding works for what it is intended to, and it properly differentiates between WMF staff and the people who volunteered years of their life making these projects be so successful (without a dime in return). Coffee // have a cup // 10:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  32.   Oppose Just no. If you want to rebrand the foundation to something, call it WMF without it meaning anything. It allows us to not have to explain what the heck Wikimedia is to everyone and it avoids confusing the general public further. The money spent on this rebranding would've been better spent elsewhere. -Yupik (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  33.   Strong oppose. The WMF is the Foundation that hosts Wikipedia -an encyclopedia- and other Wikimedia projects, and that supports them. The WMF must not be confused with the encyclopedia. In France, journalists already often confuse the chapter Wikimedia France (although its employees explain the difference; props to them) and Wikipedia in French; we don't need an even more confusing name.
    In addition to be very confusing (as said by others), this change would be dangereous, imho, as words are not meaningless. The Wikimedia movement is decentralized (every language and project community has a big autonomy, with self-governing community), and calling everything "Wikipedia" would lead to let the world think that the Wikimedia movement (became "Wikipedia") is a unique vertical and homogeneous structure. Which is not. I don't mean to be rude (I do like WMF employees and their work), but Wikipedias (the encyclopaedias) are not a way for WMF to make its "marketing". As said by Coffee above: "I think it important to note the Foundation should not be giving off any impression that it speaks for the Wikipedia community. That is all I can possibly see coming from this... including people like the WMF CEO becoming the "Wikipedia CEO"." Kind regards, — Jules Talk 12:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  34.   Strong oppose. For many years now we try to explain to the public that there is much more to wikimedia than the wikipedia encyclopedia. Changing the name would destroy all this work and send all other projects (commons, wikidata, wikisource and so on) to the shadows. Besides, I think this rebranding would be a levelling down, which I despise. We aim to improve the knowledge and cultur of people all over the world and levelling down is the opposite of this improvement. --Relf PP (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  35.   Oppose Sister projects are not under Wikipedia, they share some values but not all and they don't have the same communities. Mixing the superstructure with one project is odd and disengaging Noé (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  36.   Oppose, as it will increase confusion between the Wikipedia projects and some chapters. How could the public understand that the Chair of Wikipedia France is not the Chair of French Wikipedia and, thus, has no editorial power? --~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pic-Sou (talk)
  37. Wikimedia can and should be more then only Wikipedia. Habitator terrae (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  38.   Oppose It must be clear that WMF is not Wikipedia! --Wikiolo (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  39. Hell no. (If you want longer version, refer to what MER-C said.) — regards, Revi 13:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  40.   Oppose This will create confusion between the Foundation, the Chapters and the communities. Wikipedia is the product of autonomous communities, not the product of the Foundation and not the product of the Chapters. I suspect that this is an attempt to expropriate the community work for the Foundation, or at least to make use of the good name of Wikipedia for the Foundation's public relations. In future, we shall often hear that "Wikipedia" puts forward some statements, although it was only the Board of the Foundation that has decided upon such a statement, but not the working communities. This is not legitimate and should not be done.Mautpreller (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  41.   Oppose. 2 separate stuff/entities should never have similar names imo. It's like a father/mother with a name of "foo bar" naming the child "bar foo". Minorax (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  42.   Oppose. Syrcro (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  43.   Oppose per Habitator terrae. Greetings, --Snookerado (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  44. totally   Oppose I'm from Quebec, we are mostly french speaking too, and it's not only confusing, it's wrongly associate Wikipedia with "France". It's already a France domination (social domination) on WP:FR. So, this is too much. --Idéalités (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  45.   Oppose Arguments are already told above. --Poslovitch (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  46.   Strong oppose Wikimedia movement began with Wikipedia, 19 years ago, but Wikimedia Foundation appeared in June 2003, and during sixteen years, all wikiprojects were clearly hosted by Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia and other projects were seen, in an implicit manner, to be equal as projects hosted by WMF, none of them superior than others, though Wikipedia is cerrtainly the most popular of them. If a change was made now, as Wikipedia Foundation, it would mean that Wikipedia projects were on a higher stage than other projects (Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikimedia Commons, Wiokispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikidata, Wikivoyage). It is really a very bad idea. Many thanks for having created this RfC. Wikimedia community has to give her opinion... and to stop this goal if it is still possible. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Edit. I would not like to understand that the circle (or the ball) inside Wikimedia logo is nothing more than a foggy goal, like this part (Where the world's headed, nobody knows.) of the very old song Ball of Confusion (That's What the World Is Today) sung (1970) by the Motown vocal group The Temptations and written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong. Song's title and sense are quite different from the Wikimedia name changing proposal, but why wouldn't I use good words against a bad project? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  47.   Oppose Wikipedia is only one of more than 10 projects the WMF hosts. Therefore I think it is a bad idea to change to the name to Wikipedia. A lot of confusion, more then nowadays, will be the result. If the WMF should be renamed then choose a complete different name. As mentioned before Firefox / Mozilla or Google / Alphabet. Raymond (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  48.   Strong oppose. No, ad calendas graecas. —Sgd. Hasley 14:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  49.   Oppose Since many years people have been asking, what the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia is. This led to fruitful discussions about free knowledge and the structures, which make projects like Wikipedia possible. The people, interested in knowledge, do not need simple names and simple solutions. They should not be mislead about the characteristic features of the Wikimedia movement due to reasons of branding. --Regiomontanus (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  50.   Strong oppose It's nonsense. If people don't know what Wikimedia is, don't summarize with Wikipedia. It's disrespectful for all the other projects. If two things are different, just name them differently. Otherwise, it's confusing. Lepticed7 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  51.   Strong oppose Arguments are already told above. >> It must be clear that WMF is not Wikipedia! --Jocian (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  52.   Strong oppose The Foundation has become too disconnected from the WP community and as such it would be a grave misrepresentation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  53.   Strong oppose Just no. --~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  54.   Strong oppose And please do not evaluate this poll in the same strange way you did there: Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review/results#RFC ("0.6% of informed oppose (57 users oppose of ~9,000 reached) "). Chaddy (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  55. strong   Oppose it is something else, simply -jkb- 15:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  56.   Oppose What about Wikitravel, Wikinews, Wikisource and many other Wikimedia projects? Regards, Agathenon (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  57.   Strong oppose : WMF is not only Wikipedia as many already told above. Galdrad (Communiquer) 15:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  58.   Strong oppose The Wikimedia Foundation supports many projects. Some of them (Wikitravel, Wikispecies, etc.) have a little visibility. If the Foundation rename itself “Wikipedia”, they will have none any more. --Laurent Jerry (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Laurent Jerry, Agathenon, and Morten Haan:, I completely agree with your sentiments but just to clarify, Wikitravel is not part of the WMF but owned by a private company. Wikitravel has advertising, is for-profit and is increasingly full of spam and outdated content. The WMF travel guide is called Wikivoyage and is a Wikimedian wiki like Wikinews, Wikispecies, Wikibooks, etc. Wikivoyage does not contain advertising, has a larger editor base with more up-to-date content and has a common purpose to provide free knowledge and content to all. DaGizza (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  59.   Oppose it creates confusion, it creates problems in many countries, where being identified as Wikipedia staff has legal implications, it makes our scope way narrower (in 10 years Wikidata may be our main project), the data given to the board is confusing and we don't even need it. -Theklan (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  60.   Strong oppose: The WMF manages not only Wikipedia but also its sister project including Commons, Wikibooks, Wikitravel, Wikisource, and Wikinews. --Morten Haan (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  61.   Strong oppose per above. Ayack (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  62.   Oppose I heard that Toyota wants to rename itself: "Corolla". I can't trace the source, it must be a hoax. --Madelgarius (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  63.   Strong oppose A terrible idea that is being pushed through. Really concerned about decisions WMF have made over the past two years Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  64.   Oppose WMF doesn't speak for the individual Wikipedia's and shouldn't give the appearance to outside parties that it does. ChristianKl❫ 16:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  65. No. Confusing. GabrieL (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  66.   Oppose wiki-media is the perfect name to designate all the 10+ wikis hosted by the Foundation. Rename for Wikipedia will disbalance even more the actual visibility of the projects. Simon Villeneuve 16:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  67.   Strong oppose The WMF is not Wikipedia and this just furthers the problems we've had, especially over the last year, of the WMF seeing themselves as the masters of Wikipedia rather than the servants who make sure the bills are paid. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  68.   Oppose My oppose is rather weak. I do wish that the movement can make better use of the valuable Wikipedia brand. But I have to agree that the proposed use for the Foundation could create more confusion of its own kind. Ziko (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  69.   Oppose, as this would be misleading. --Túrelio (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  70.   Oppose The rebranding would likely result in unnecessary confusion and might make a (hopefully erroneous) impression that the foundation no longer cares about other Wikimedia projects. Sintakso (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  71.   Strong oppose WMF ≠ Wikipedia. --Hannes 24 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  72.   Oppose Per others. — Draceane talkcontrib. 16:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  73.   Strong oppose --Gampe (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  74.   Oppose, misleading: it obliterates sister projects (Wikidata, Commons, Wikisource ...). --Epìdosis 17:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  75.   Oppose per Jheald. It's a shame this RfC can't be snowclosed already. Mahir256 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  76.   Strong oppose. Especially per Coffee, Noé, Mautpreller, Raymond and Regiomontanus. All the best, Bernhard Wallisch 17:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  77.   Strong oppose WMF ain't WP and it never will be. Greetings. Nasiruddin (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  78.   Strong oppose. My opinion, my thining about ... Some other users have already described with words: Coffee, Jules, and especially Mautpreller (No. 31, 33, 41 at the moment).--Tozina (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  79.   Oppose. This would be intentionally misleading. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, production of which the Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to facilitate along with other projects, such as Wikimedia Commons. The Foundation is neither purely concerned with Wikipedia nor in control of it, and donors and others dealing with the Foundation need to know the the difference. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  80.   Oppose WMF foundation support's many projects like Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, ... Changing it to "the Wikipedia foundation" would generate confusion and undermine other projects. HB (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  81. Mild oppose, which might better be described as a strong neutral: Why are we wasting our time on this? Given that it is clearly controversial, and will make a comparable number of people unhappy to the people it makes happy, haven't the community and the Foundation better things to spend their time on (not to mention the money that a rebranding will inevitably cost? - Jmabel (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  82.   Strong oppose Wikipedia does not need more visibility but the sister projects do. The projects and their respective communities also need to be clearly distinguished from the foundation and its chapters. The Wikimedia brand is thus way more relevant and efficient in what it does, than the proposed marketing tweak. We must focus on how to improve its brand awareness rather than simply killing it off. ››Fugitron - 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  83.   Strong oppose useless actionism --ɱ 18:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  84.   Oppose Dangerous for the brand Wikipedia--Fuucx (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  85.   Oppose In agreement with most of the opinions expressed above ~ Antoniex (discuter) 19:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  86.   Oppose Per the many great arguments above, and particularly per Jmabel's "strong neutral". At best this is a solution in search of a problem, and we have plenty of real problems. -- Visviva (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  87.   Strong oppose If people don’t know the foundation, that means there needs to be more communication about it. Renaming it to Wikipedia is not a solution and is just confusing. Plus, it would hide the other projects even more than now. Darmo117 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  88.   Oppose first the wikipedians and other contributors of other projects have not agreed on a transversal and horizontal level, second I don't understand the rationale behind it, third it undermines other projects like wikisource, wikidata, wiktionnary & al, fourth it is confusing : chapters, foundation and wiki projects are connected but different and this difference makes us an outstanding and rhyzomatic movement, creating debates and dynamics that have lead to the success of our projects. It is part of oour very special identity. Also as said above, chapters have no editorial function and the rebranding will make it hard to explain that in a legal context, where chaèters receive complaints about what is written on Wikipedia. Nattes à chat (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  89.   Strong oppose If anything, the distinction between foundation and encyclopedia should be made *clearer*, not blurrier. --Tkarcher (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  90.   Oppose Seems like most Wikipedians don't like the idea of a Wikipedia Foundation, so please do not switch names and leave everything as is.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  91.   Oppose confusing and less inclusive and supportive for other Wikimedia projects. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  92.   Oppose I suspect the hidden agenda to be : 1) to kill (medium term) "small" projects such as wikitionary, wikibooks. 2) to take benefit of Wikipedia notoriety. --Gustave67 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    I think we can assume the good faith of the WMF, even if we disagree with the current proposal. Regards, — Jules Talk 13:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  93.   Oppose Wikimedia is not only Wikipedia. There are lots of other major projects like the amazing Wikidata, the Wiktionary, etc. Very bad idea. --Deansfa (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  94. Oppose: We and you need to differentiate between the volunteer movement (Wikipedia and the other projects) and the organization behind it (Wikimedia). We the volunteers earn the goodwill, you live on, that pays your salaries. They are not the same, you are not volunteers. Please don't even think about mixing those roles. --h-stt !? 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  95.   Oppose. 1) WMF is not only Wikipedia, there are also other sister projects, which are not well known, renamig will hide them even more. 2) I am sysop on Wikipedia, but I have no power in local (or global) Wikimedia. And people in Wikimedia have not bigger power in Wikipedia (and other projects). JAn Dudík (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  96.   Oppose Crochet.david (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  97.   Oppose per at least all said above --Wikinade (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  98.   Strong oppose There is indeed a problem, but this will not fix it, only make it worse. The Brand strategy proposal for 2030 (slides 26 and further) commits many errors by approaching the problem from a purely marketing point of view while forgetting the associative, non-commercial spirit that is at the root of Wikipedia and its sister projects. To compare the Wikipedia name with Google, Facebook or Youtube can't lead anywhere as those are very different structures with different statuses and completely different aims - and no, they can't use the same methods to reach their goals. You can't just decide you will use the word "Wikipedia" everywhere, just because it is the best-known Wikimedia project.
    • First, it will reinforce the already annoying confusion between Wikipedia (with its vast, horizontal communities) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with its employees that have not been chosen by the entire community and their decisions that have not been approved by the entire community). I am very ill at ease with, not to say offended by, this way of thought : "Hey, see, the name of the collective encyclopaedia all these people wrotes is a brand, and it has massive public awareness, let's use it more to put us in the spotlights !" It sounds like Wikimedia is trying to claim for themselves the popularity that we as a community on Wikipedia have achieved, a popularity which does not belong to the Foundation as an administrative structure but belongs to all volunteer, unpaid Wikipedians who edited the encyclopedy and made it what it is now. Please leave to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Wikimedia and Wikipedia are two distinct entities. Find a new name for Wikimedia, yes, but don't use the confusion between "Wikimedia" and "Wikipedia" to pose as us.
    • Second, it will worsen the invisibility of all other projects instead of fixing it : they will definitely be thought to be only vague expansions of the main Wikipedia website, whereas they should be thought as distinct projects. I really can't see how anyone could ever think that such a name change could solve this problem ! Maybe Wikimedia needs a new name, but, if anything, it should be MORE distinct from the word "Wikipedia", to clarify things.
    • The strategy proposal says Wikimedia should not use money to put more light on the smaller projects. Well, I, for one, think you should. And that would be about time !
    • Third, the way this strategy proposal concludes that the other projects are lesser known, less attractive, et cetera is preposterous and wrong on many levels. These projects have received much less effort, much less thought and much less money from the Wikimedia Foundation, so they obviously never had the means to grow larger communities and achieve more popularity. The Foundation is not only denying its own failure to put more effort and more light on these smaller projects but also professing that their failure is their own fault to reach a conclusion that would make them even more obscure as they would even more be overshadowed by Wikipedia. It is, to say the least, an awkward way of helping these projects, and looks very much like a prooff of contempt or neglect of these projects. This is everything I will never accept from the way bad marketing thinks : to give more popularity to an already well-know name ("brand") instead of putting more effort to reach balance between the projects. --Eunostos (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  99.   Strong oppose - It is already a big problem now that the importance of Wikipedia's "smaller" sister projects is very often underestimated. Equalizing the Foundation's name with that of Wikipedia would likely worsen this situation far more and at the same time be a sign of disrespect towards the other projects. De Wikischim (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  100.   Strong oppose. This would eventually undermine the salutary segregation of duties between a global encyclopedia written by online communities, and the organizations supporting it in various countries — along with a series of sister projects. If that's necessary, make the distinction Wikimedia/Wikipedia clearer, not dimmer. But never twist Wikipedia's "brand" for promotional purposes. If I'm not mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would then become sort of "Board of Wikipedia", right? Seriously! And what's next? First confuse Wikimedia with Wikipedia, then change Wikimedia's governance to surrepticiously alter Wikipedia's principles and values? Totally inappropriate. — Bob Saint Clar (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  101.   Weak oppose they can change their letterhead all they want. but the people on the ground will have to wiki'splain the facts of open scholarship. and 10 years too late, now that wikipedia is being eclipsed by wikidata. merely adds expense to affiliates with no resources to support. grand strategic thinking by expensive consultants with little consideration for community. Slowking4 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  102.   Oppose I really don't like when the Wikimedia movement is treated through a kind of business model that put it in a trademark (or brand) competition. And when I see current aspiration for a "Global Gouvernance Body" in the trategy vison of 2030, I wonder ... Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  103.   Oppose The community and its output is one thing, the corporation is another. Carrite (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  104.   Oppose The Wikimedia movement includes more than just the Wikipedia projects and this is best expressed by keeping the brand “Wikimedia” for the overall movement and the foundation. “Wikimedia” and “Wikimedia Foundation” exist since more than a decade – any change would be confusing and misleading. The Wikimedia movement includes hundreds of projects and their associated communities. The WMF should not attempt to misrepresent itself as being identical, head of, or part of a particular family of projects (like the Wikipedia projects) by rebranding itself. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  105. --GZWDer (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  106.   Oppose It would suggest that the foundation owns or control the encyclopaedia, or that it supports no other project that the encyclopaedia. Both incorrect.--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  107. Wikipedia isn't a great name for the heaps of plundered gnolage from newsrooms and backrooms that have populated parts of the databases. mediawikiwikimedia gofast-airport-shuttle might be better. It's even pundit-striped! Wikimedia is shorter and more honest, so I vote keep. SashiRolls (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  108.   Strong oppose This is not a good idea. The Foundation and Wikipedia are fundamentally different, and I think that it would be a disservice to other projects editors and (most importantly) the readers when we try to muddle the Wikipedia name with the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement with very little to gain from it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  109.   Strong oppose Wikipedia is Wikimedia's most known flagship and the Foundation's main generator of donations but still: They are two completely different things. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Wikimedia is a quasi-political movement. Also: Wikipedia's sister projects like Wikimedia Commons, WikiVoyage, Wiktionary, etc. each are independent projects. It would be a slap in the face of those users to subsume them under Wikipedia. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  110.   Strong oppose Makes no sense. Apple does not rename itself "iPhone" for a reason. ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  111.   Strong oppose Different things should have different names. --Mirer (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  112.   Strong oppose No, please. NinjaStrikers «» 05:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  113.   Strong oppose I can identify with Wikipedia project. I cannot identify with Wikimedia Foundation. I am glad that they use different names. Rebranding would not make me feel part of Wikimedia but would alienate me from Wikipedia. —Niki.L (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  114.   Oppose Rots61 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  115.   Oppose. Why on Earth you are trying to mess with WMF's name? Let them decide for themselves. Even if this were to get a lot of support, the WMF would likely decline this proposal. We definitely don't need to change Wikimedia's name after over 15 years. This would create a lot of confusion. Masum Reza📞 08:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Masumrezarock100: please read Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project. This renaming project is from the WMF. — Jules Talk 09:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Jules78120: you are correct. Apologies for not reading this whole long discussion. I am still opposing this proposal though. Masum Reza📞 14:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  116. just no. Edoderoo (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  117.   Strong oppose Never change a winning team  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  118.   Strong oppose Stop wasting donations, spend them for things we really need. Also stop lying to donators during the annual fundraisers, consider skipping a year instead of hoarding. —viciarg414 09:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  119.   Oppose The money spent on rebranding, endless discussions about affiliates renaming, questionable value added.Jklamo (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  120.   Strong oppose per Eunistos, et al. WMF have got all the money, all the personnel, all the resources (apart from the volunteers who do all the content creation, of course) and now they want the bloody name! This is muddying already muddy waters. I'd be delighted to see 'Wikipedia' in a strap-line, but not as a name change. Something like this would be reasonably acceptable: "Wikimedia Foundation - powering the Wikipedia communities". Change the Foundation name, by all means, but not to put 'Wikipedia' in the main title. What really needs resolving is the confusion between WMF and Wikimedia Commons. There, a change to "WikiCommons" would be welcome (or maybe even a recognition that it has become a rather sad repository for, and defender of, thousands upon thousands of pointless and predominantly unusable genitalia images. Maybe change it to "WikiPornHub" or even "WikiDickPicsPlus"?) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  121.   Strong oppose Wikimedia is not wikipedia, same name cause confusion--Remy34 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  122.   Oppose I understand the rationale but that would be shortsighted. Popo le Chien (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  123.   Strong oppose Why name the whole thing after one part of it? Expensive nonsense! --Quarz (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  124.   Strong oppose This would cause a lot of confusion, and it sends the message that WMF is finally giving up on the other Wikimedia projects. This is also in opposition to Wikimedias call for more diversity! Fokusing on the encyclopedia means less diversity, the concept of encyclopedias is a very western one, fixating on only this will harm the possibility to find possibilities to share the knowlege of other cultures. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  125. just to count one of the 9,000 who only viewed... -- Divchino (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  126.   Strong oppose Really no need for this. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  127.   Oppose It will only create more confusion between the community and the foundation roles. Boréal (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  128.   Oppose it is all written...for me the best argument: The WMF is responsibile for all projects and not "only" for the Wikipedia --Elmie (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  129.   Oppose Even Wikimedia is a trick name, to gain donations for an organization, that is not identical with the project, the people want to support. This tricky confusion should not be expanded. Instead the WMF should firm under an unique name, operate with transparency and always emphasize the difference between organisation and project. Then let's find out, how much it is valued in the public for what their employees do with all the money and not what non-organized unpaid volunteers do in Wikipedia in their freetime. --Magiers (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  130.   Strong oppose Wikipedia is a project with a specific scope, not an umbrella term. It is critical for Wikipedia’s credibility to keep the encyclopedia project and the foundation apart. --Polarlys (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  131.   Strong oppose There is no need to do this. Muhraz (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  132.   Strong oppose --JasN (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  133.   Oppose Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  134.   Oppose - Per others. Wikimedia is not Wikipedia and vice versa. Yes, Wikipedia has been relatively more successful, but this doesn't mean we can refer to Wikimedia as Wikipedia and, among many other things, create a lot of confusion. Ahmadtalk 16:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  135.   Oppose Better put some efforts into a good marketing campaign to explain the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  136.   Oppose - I believe that WMF has lost sight of the key principles of Wikipedia. Funding is increasingly diverted to meeting exorbitant staff costs and projects that are neither needed nor requested by projects, instead of supporting the work of volunteers. Statements are already made that do not have the support of volunteer communities, and actions taken despite overwhelming opposition from the projects concerned. It is important that there is a proper distinction between WMF and Wikipedia, and that WMF's ability to speak for Wikipedia is limited. WJBscribe (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  137.   Oppose Considering the recent "innovations" (Strategy and code of conduct), i‘d like to recommend Wokepedia Foundation instead. Greetings, --Enter (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  138.   Strong oppose As a volunteer in the OTRS Supportteam I often deal with tickets containing complaints about Wikipedia content. I find it is essential to communicate, that WMF and their staff on the payroll is only hosting the servers, but is not responsible for the Content of Wikipedia. Wikimedia claiming the Wikipedia brand will blurr this line between Foundation and our Encyclopedia projects of volunteers. --Neozoon (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  139.   Strong oppose Ymnes (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  140.   Strong oppose Wikipedia ≠ Wikimedia --Alraunenstern۞ 19:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  141.   Strong oppose --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  142.   Strong oppose different names for different entities. --Don-kun (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  143.   Oppose Such a rebrand would make it seem like the WMF could speak on behalf of the editing community, when it can't. TomDotGov (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  144.   Oppose This muddles things and leads to problems with existing chapters. No matter what they would do in the wake of such a rename, it would be problematic. Country chapters are already fighting the wrong perception that they have any influence on Wikipedia's content or control the local community. Media as well as authorities often assume that, for example, Wikimedia Deutschland, is in some way responsible for the content of German-language Wikipedia. The brand Wikimedia helps in clarifying the distinction. So, changing chapter's names to Wikipedia Deutschland etc. could be rather unpopular with the chapters, I guess. But if they keep their Wikimedia name whilst there is a Wikipedia Foundation, confusion will also arise. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  145.   Oppose Wikipedia is the editing community. WMF isn't. --Zinnmann (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  146.   Oppose One of the strengths of the Wikimedia movement is its diversity of projects and it shouldn't be reduced to only one. And to quote Katherine Maher: "Our movement is the sum of its parts.". Also, per a lot of arguments made on this page, here or there. — Envlh (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  147.   Oppose Cedalyon (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  148.   Oppose Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  149.   Strong oppose Per Nosebagbear, Magiers, WJBscribe, Mautpreller and Coffee --Lynxbiru (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  150.   Strong oppose The sisterprojects do already have many problems with Wikipedia dominating them as a brand. Rebranding Wikimedia would make the sisterprojects even more invisible. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  151.   Oppose --Gripweed (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  152.   Oppose When we decided to distinguish between the project and the organization we had very good reasosn – I don’t see that those have changed much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaB. (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020
  153.   Oppose --Yen Zotto (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  154.   Oppose Wikipedia ≠ Wikimedia --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  155.   Oppose Nein, das ist keine kluge Strategie, die Diversivikation ist ein Plus, kein Minus. Liebe Grüße --Itti (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  156.   Oppose I have already been asked that and I have already answered and I'm weirded out that the question is still on the table. BTW: If the Foundation were to change its name to Wikipedia I demand they act like a Wikipedia thing instead of a Wikimedia thing. → «« Man77 »» [de] 23:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  157.   Strong oppose As long as WMF is hasting/supporting various free knowledge projects other than wikipedia itself I see no reason why it should use Wikipedia as its. Furthermore would such a move probably also confuse the distinction between the WMF and the Wikipedia Community, so let's not add further complications to an already somewhat difficult (and for externals already often confusing) relationship.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  158.   Oppose   Strong oppose I do not see any conses on this and this should be a comunity decission, not a WMF one, which currently it is not. --Fano (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Edit: Thinking about it, "conses" is actually a too strong requirement. But it does require a stonger suport as what is stated at KPI. --Fano (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Edit 2: I just finished watching the presentation linked at the right and based on this I need to change my comment to a strong oppose. So your consulted recognized that you failed over the last 15 years to explain to the world what the brand Wikimedia is and your solution to this problem is not to start working on this but to highjack a different brand that, as your consultants actually managed to find out themselves has a strong connection to Encyclopedia only?! By confusing everybody within and without the community who does now the difference? I don't question the problem, but the solution sucks. --10:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Ps.: I really hope this was a free software that produced the subtitle. If it were not so sad I could laugh.
  159.   Strong oppose As long as it is not clear what strategy discussion does with communities there should be a firewall - documented by different names --Brainswiffer (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  160.   Oppose I'm for the golden middle ground - rather than Wikimedia or Wikipedia: Wikinedia --Methodios (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  161.   Strong oppose WikiMedia: Officials who get paid and do what is best to keep them in office (the usual way). M like Money, Managers, Monolith; WikiPedia: Volunteers who write articles. P like People, Performance, Pain. Keep it as it is - and economize the money for the consulting company. But my experience tells me: M will do it anyway. Play It Again, SPAM (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  162.   Strong oppose per Zinnmann. --Icodense (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  163.   Strong oppose As a Wiktionary editor I have to say: Wikipedia ≠ Wikimedia. Nostrix (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  164.   Oppose I think this might lead to confusion about what the role is of the Wikimedia Foundation in the Wikimedia system. Also, so as long as the system includes projects called Commons, Wikidata, Wiktionary etc. we cannot rename it after one particular type of project. If the non-Wikipedia projects are to be deprioritized, don't do so in such a back-handed way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  165.   Strong oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Neither the WMF nor the chapters write it. Most of the readers don't care about the software, but about content and calling the WMF or chapters is just the wrong address. Pretending to be "wikipedia" is hubris. --Ailura (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. Or it's the other way around and the WMF wants to replace the volunteer community and write wikipedia by herself
  166.   Oppose WP is an encyclopdia, WM is more. The whole should not have the name of a part. ----Gabel1960 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  167.   Oppose Yes, Wikipedia/Wikimedia/MediaWiki is confusing but so is changing a brand that is 15 years old by a single letter. I also don't like the idea of privileging one of our sister projects above the others, even if it's easily the most famous and in many respects the most successful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  168.   Strong oppose Given the great number of arguments already expressed against the proposal, it is not easy to find a new one. However, I strongly oppose, because I find very convincing most of those arguments against and none of the weak opinions supporting it. --Pafsanias (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  169.   Oppose. The Foundation could spend their time and money on better things than re-branding. --Alexander (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  170.   Oppose Keeping some separation between the different entities is prudent because governments are increasingly putting pressure on internet media companies to take responsibility for their content and consequences. For example, see this recent White Paper which "proposes establishing in law a new duty of care towards users, which will be overseen by an independent regulator. Companies will be held to account for tackling a comprehensive set of online harms, ranging from illegal activity and content to behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal." Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  171.   supporters, you are really wrong It's also likely that Wikipedia to be splitted from WMF, don't make hardly connections between both. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  172. All was perfect ! media is the frame ; pedia is the target ! TigH (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  173.   Oppose It was a stupid idea, it is a stupid idea, & it always will be a stupid idea. (I know, not very persuasive, but at this point there's nothing intelligent left to say in opposition to this proposal.) -- Llywrch (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  174.   Strong oppose--Riepichiep (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  175.   Oppose LOL. No. DutchTina (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  176.   Oppose All the good arguments have already been made. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  177.   Strong oppose Maximilian Schönherr (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  178.   Oppose It is logical and helpful to have different names for the encyclopedia and the overall organisation. Strobilomyces (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  179.   Strong oppose Briefly:
    1. Wikimedia is not recognised because it was never branded properly. It is natural for people to not know it if we (or the Foundation) never made an effort to make proper marketing.
    2. It is not logical. As stated in the 2030 strategic direction, Wikimedia is a platform (ecosystem) for free knowledge. Wikipedia is one of the ways how we want to achieve that. Take Mozilla as the organization fighting for open internet and Firefox as one of its products by which they want to achieve it. It can work. And it does. Like it is now.
    3. It creates confusion. In the plan, everything is going to be called Wikipedia - foundation, movement, affiliates and one project. It will be very hard to distinguish what we mean after the rebranding since everything is going to be called by the same name.
    4. It will take years to implement in the movement. Movement knows the system as it is. Word "Wikimedia" is used across tens of thousands of pages on Meta and in every project. If not implemented properly (which is going to be very hard given the number of spaces where Wikimedia is used), it will create a huge mess. Disuniformity is the worst you can have in marketing.
    5. Because of other projects and people working on them and about people who fight for free knowledge. Why should a person who works solely on Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons be called Wikipedian (or be associated with Wikipedia) when the person does not have anything to do with it? Some people only focus on activism to make more knowledge free around the world. They clearly do not have anything to do with an encyclopedia.
    6. There is no clear sign that movement itself wants this change. So far it seems that rebranding from Wikimedia to Wikipedia will happen anyway. The community will only have the chance to discuss how exactly this should happen. Not if this should happen. Feedback on the rebranding happened this spring but there was no banner on all the projects that would inform everyone about the back-in-then proposed change. Many people do not even know that this is happening. Plus, many people showed serious concerns on metrics that were used to measure the feedback and the appetite for the change.
      --Luky001 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  180.   Tsjin. Der is hjirboppe al in soad oer sein en it komt hast allegearre op itselde del. Ik sil de koarte ferzje dochs ek noch mar efkes opskriuwe yn in taal wer't jimme wat muoite foar dwaan moatte, sadat it úteinlik faaks noch wat better trochkringt: der binne hiel wat WMF-projekten en mar in part derfan binne wikipedyen, sjoch hjir. Bring se ûnder ien namme en alles rekket yn 'e tiis. Fierder per MarcoAurelio. Wutsje (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  181.   Strong oppose - this will just undermine the smaller projects further. Open to a name change but not to anything resembling Wikipedia. If anything, the new name should be easier to distinguish from Wikipedia, not as it is now with just one letter/sound being different. DaGizza (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  182.   Oppose - Wikimedia is more. Encycloon 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  183.   Strong oppose I agree with the points made by DaGizza and others, the Foundation should promote itself as an umbrella organization supporting different projects, and not make itself a synonym of its best known project. ArticCynda (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  184.   Strong oppose. Wikipedia is the highest-visibility Wikimedia project, but it's not the only Wikimedia project, and other projects have different focuses, guidelines and styles. Anything that further confuses people, such that they conflate every Wikimedia project with Wikipedia, is unhelpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  185.   Oppose --RobNbaby (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  186.   Oppose --Wil540 art (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  187.   Oppose Let's say I have a child who, as a teenager, becomes a child actor and gets very famous. He brings in a lot of money (all of which goes to me) and everybody loves him. I feel like he could be getting even more gigs to make us more money, though. The thing is, any time I approach a producer it takes a minute to establish that I'm his parent, so I'm going to change my name to be the same as his.
    Putting aside all of the very good points about confusion, the meaning of "Wikipedia", who is represented by that name, etc. I'm just not sure why the Foundation needs to be a household name. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  188.   Oppose Don't waste resources on marketing. Branding is not important. Improve software and infrastructure. Zanaq (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  189.   Oppose -- Matroc (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  190.   Strong oppose Wikimedia is our movement, Wikipedia our project. Our movement will not be erased, and our project will not be possessed. Whatever marginal value anyone may believe this branding exercise has, it is not worth putting the corporate above the community. I'd actually be happy to talk more about identity as a community, and I think we can make some positive brand evolution working together, but this top-down process is totally the opposite of that.--Pharos (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  191.   Nonsense. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  192.   Strong oppose Not only because of the actual change, with all the dangers that have been already mentioned elsewhere, but because how this process has been pushed (far from being acceptable and respectful for many of the involved stakeholders). --Toniher (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  193.   Oppose. This might have made sense 10 years ago. It doesnt make sense today. The wikimedia name is now part of our identity. I'm not super concerned what the foundation calls itself, but i find the idea of rebranding the "movement" to be offensive to the non wikipedia projects and quite frankly offensive to all the people who have dedicated themselves to the projects as Wikimedians. Even worse is the idea of renaming the projects which sometimes is thrown around with this idea and sometimes not. Last of all, i feel this proposal has been pushed forward in an underhanded way, which makes me even more unsympathetic to it. Bawolff (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  194.   Oppose. --Diorit (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  195.   Strong oppose --Armin (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  196. I don't understand why this is needed in the first place. Why does the foundation have such a need to be named after the more valuable brand, like Coca-Cola, or Volkswagen? It looks like an organization that tries to exist by itself and for itself; though it is there to support the projects. That's true the foundation owns the brands and, by laws, can do whatever it wants with it; however it cannot do anything substancial without community support. Turb (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC) -- edit: Slide #28 speaks about "mindshare", a competition the foundation is allegedly having with Google and Facebook. The whole problem is here, I believe. Turb (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  197. --A.Savin (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  198.   Oppose Three reasons. First: Even if non-editors are more used to Wikipedia than Wikimedia, it is not compulsory to use the most popular name (my local example: Telefónica/Movistar). Second: Some people would be in very seriuos troubles, because when Wikipedia said something "unpleasant" towards some coutries' leaders, those leaders could send for the "President" of Wikipedia and... well, there are places where trying to explain things to the police is not a friendly experience. Third: While there are arguments for and against changing names, what I can't see is a need to rush into it. B25es (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  199.   Strong oppose This whole process is taking the little amount of trust some of us still had in the Foundation and throwing out the window just in time for a bus to run over it. The biggest problem here is not the name change but the process itself. --Unapersona (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  200.   Strong oppose. The proposed change is
    • Limited, as it focuses on popularity rather than importance. In fact, it is contradictory to the Foundation’s standing vision, though that could also be changed to “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of the knowledge that is salable or that a sizable portion of community members like to work on and/or brag about.”
    • Limiting. As many editors have noted above, the change would throw a shadow on projects that are not Wikipedia, to their further detriment.
    • Irresponsible as well as undemocratic. That the foundation can do whatever it wants does not mean it should do whatever it wants. It has a responsibility to the community, if nothing else because it would not exist if it were not for the community. One small change for the foundation--and that change even managed by a branding company--means hours and hours of debate, work, and trouble for the community, as has been detailed extensively by editors above.
    • Mortifying. The wanna-be comparisons with Google and Facebook from the branding strategy reveal that the foundation wishes we were other than what we are, or--more generously--the comparisons are inconsistent with who the community the foundation claims to represent is. We are not a for-profit tech company that needs “fewer entry points” to be recognized to be forever marketable. We are messy and diverse as it befits a grassroots movement, and I, for one, would like the foundation’s attempt at branding to reflect that.
    • Arrogant. WMF, you are not Wikipedia, and you will never be, even if you dress yourself in stolen robes. Doctorxgc (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  201.   Oppose Wikimedia is a group, Wikipedia a website. Now its for some not clear, what what is, but when all have the same name, noone knows, who is meant. It could be legally difficult to distinguish between the trademark, the foundation, the website and the community of contributors; and charges could affect the wrong people. --Quedel (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  202.   Strong oppose. As stated above, this renaming would cause great and problematic confusion between Wikipedia and (what we call now) Wikimedia. There is quite a confusion already, and this change would further it very much, for worse. --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  203.   Oppose People have already provided good responses. And if you want to go corporate, just look at corporate examples, e.g. Google. Google is not the whole project, Alphabet is. In any case, please be responsive to the community rather than the bubble of WMF administration. - Kosboot (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  204.   Oppose Emjackson42 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  205.   Strong oppose No sense to change the name since we still keep in fight to make people understand Wikimedia as a multidimensional project that goes beyond Wikipedia.--Jove (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  206.   Strong oppose very bad idea --Atamari (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  207.   Oppose per above. J947 00:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  208.   Oppose Why? Although new users have a hard time understanding what WMF is, it will only cause more confusion and not be inclusive to all the projects that WMF oversees. It's like saying that w:en:Alphabet Inc. (WMF in this example) should be called w:en:Google (Wikipedia in this example), ignoring larger subsidiaries like w:en:YouTube (Commons in this example) and smaller subsidiaries like w:en:Makani (a project like Wikiquote). It is unfair to both YouTube and the smaller companies, as they are independent subsidiaries. Applying this to this situation, you see that although Wikiquote has similarities to Wikipedia and shares core values, they are different and act differently. On the end of PR, changing the name now will only cause more confusion to those who already know WMF as WMF, but also imply that Wikipedia is somehow "superior" by the very nature of the top organisation being called it too. It will cause issues for those dealing with issues off Wikipedia sites, as those who are on, let's say Wikiquote, might need to talk to the WMF about something, only to find that they seem to be talking to Wikipedia? I suspect this will only confuse the uninformed person, who may then think they have contacted the wrong people. Although WMF does not have an instant connection to particular project(s) for the uninformed person, it is better to have all the projects have uninformed persons contacting a differently named organisation for WMF issues, instead of contacting a organisation named after a different project. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  209. Absolutely not There is nothing at all wrong with having a separate foundation - clearly identified by its own unique-but-related name - supporting a related project, group, or organization e.g., sports teams have "boosters," many U.S. colleges and universities have legally separate "foundations." Changing the name of the foundation appears too much like co-opting the work and goodwill of the volunteers of the many Wikipedia projects. The professional staff and organization who support those volunteers and their projects should remain distinctly identifiable (and proud of the important and unique work that they do, too!). ElKevbo (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  210.   Strong oppose. Sister projects need more visibility, not less. — Hiplibrarianship (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  211.   Strong oppose Wikimedia is not wikipedia, same name cause confusion. PawełMM (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  212.   Dooda. Éí doo chohooʼį́į́góó daʼílį́į dooleeł shaʼshin. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  213.   Oppose, having a hard time seeing how this change benefits anyone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  214.   Oppose --Gorkaazk (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  215.   Strong oppose. Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wikiquote, MediaWiki and Wikispecies aren't Wikipedia. --FonAfon (talk | contribs) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  216.   Strong oppose Wikimedia ≠ Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is the oldest, we should treat all projects equally. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  217. Brilliant time, money and resources wasting enterprise. You're making us all proud of your work. Keep going, WMF! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  218.   Oppose What for? Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  219.   Oppose:Kilkerra (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  220.   Oppose Wikipedia is the strongest WMF brand, but not WMF itself. Rdrozd (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  221.   Oppose They are seperate entities and a lot of other projects need attention, like Wikiversity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghinga7 (talk)
  222.   Strong oppose Most confusing for everybody to give the roof or overall service the same name as one of many components.
    And Wikipedia-Wikisource is not really clarifying, while OldWikipedia needs to be called Wikipedia-Wikipedia?
    There is already a common denominator, the part WIKI, even in Wiktionary, and present as well in Wikisource, Wikimedia, Mediawiki. They have already a common WIKI branding. Calling everything to be a Wikipedia will not improve anything.
    If the Foundation wants to get good branding, they should gain their own merits, but abstain from stealing the good name from millions of volunteers putting billions of hours into their (local) Wikipedia.
    Currently, there are 19 Ayes and 221 Nays. One of the promises of those great famous 2030 series is better involvement and communication with the communities. We will learn whether WMF will ignore this clear picture and tell us in the end, well, it was just a requests for comments, but we found the supporters more convincing, and numbers do not count. So we did what we always wanted to do, the requests for comments has been just a matter of form, but we never intended to care about the result. --PerfektesChaos (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  223.   Oppose Although I somewhat agree that the name Wikimedia Foundation is not the best, I oppose the move to Wikipedia Foundation. For me it is mostly about not recognizing the other projects (which are often known as just that) and the burden it places on the affiliates who will most likely need to be renamed. For those working on a purely voluteer basis like ours this would mean a lot of extra effort. Apart from consulations with our members, we would need the by-laws updated, approved at an AGM, and finally approved by the Interior Ministry; changes to the register of NGOs; changes in the bank; on cards and business cards etc. The financial cost to the organization might not be great or might be supported by WMF but unless volunteer time is compensated, I believe that efforts should rather be spent on other issues.--Jetam2 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  224.   Strong oppose The wmf is an organization intended to provide a limited degree of centralized support for projects, but thinks (as central organizations tend to do) that it therefore controls or ought to control the projects. It is now trying to institutionalize this false idea of its proper function by taking over the name of the most widely known and --at this point--most successful of the projects it is supposed to be supporting. This is not, as some of the comments indicates, a matter of mere semantics, or of confusion of mission. It's a question of power--of further institutionalizing its already excessive power, power which it uses in opposition to the great majority of the volunteers. It shows the corruption of the fundamental idea behind wikipedia, that volunteers informally organized can make univesally usefu lresources better than professionals. . DGG (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  225.   Oppose Makes me feel like contributing to Wikivoyage or Wikidata is like contributing to a second-class project. --Nw520 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  226.   Oppose Confusing, limiting, and misleading. In the Foundation's own words: It owns the internet domain names of most movement projects and hosts sites like Wikipedia. You cannot be both. Atsme📞📧 00:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  227. Sure, if the Foundation changes itself into a democratic institution in which every member of the Wikipedia Foundation board of directors is elected by the Wikipedia community via an Arbcom-style election. That includes Jimbo, though I'm sure the community would be fine with giving him a lifetime honorary, non-voting seat. Otherwise,   Oppose. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  228.   Strong oppose. Like said before: Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wikiquote, MediaWiki and Wikispecies are not Wikipedia. And: I read this page yesterday without any voting - I needed some time to think about it.--Kiwas (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  229.   Strong oppose per above. tufor (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  230.   Strong oppose The foundation should have a name that is inclusive of all the projects, not the most successful project. It creates confusion, and it takes corporate ownership of our collective efforts, in spirit if not in fact. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  231. Paelius (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  232.   Oppose I think all the main points have already been covered. Bottom line, if we do this it will further the notion that the other projects are just ancillaries of Wikipedia. In addition we need to be reinforcing that as an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a very specialized kind of wiki with a distinct purpose. 𝒬𝔔 20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  233.   Oppose - The support comments above appear to overlook the many other projects operated by WMF, as have been said above, namely Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wikiquote, MediaWiki and Wikispecies. These cannot easily be renamed to "Wikipedia" just for the sake of public consistency. None of these are encyclopedia-like projects like the Wikipedias are. epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  234.   Strong oppose Also, dissolve the Wikimedia Foundation. --Townie (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  235.   Strong oppose per the many reasons listed above. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be renamed to the Wikipedia Foundation. Also, I find it concerning that 9,000+ views of this page is percieved as inherent support and that there's "only" so many oppose votes. That's not how consensus works, views do not equate approval. Views can mean any number of things, and it's unlikely that all of them are unique visitors to this page, anyways. I almost didn't vote because it seemed pointless, my oppose would have been a pile-on. I would have been outraged if my view was percieved as being supportive of this RfC. There's more than 200 oppose votes and only 20 support votes at this time. That's 10 times more people who disagree with this than agree. I'm disappointed that the Wikimedia Foundation does not appear to be accurately representing the community viewpoint on this matter, and I'm frustrated that this rebranding was even suggested in the first place. This has the potential to alienate a lot of contributors, especially from sister projects. It's also something that increases the divide between the Wikimedia Foundation and a community that feels like it's being ignored by it. Clovermoss (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  236.   Oppose The confusion between Wikipedia and Wikimedia organizations already got people arrested. let's not increase the problem. Tpt (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  237.   Strong oppose. What about commons? This change creates needless confusion and is a colossal waste of the warchest funds that have been donated by generous readers. There are already too many people employed at Wikimedia and the number should be cut back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  238.   Oppose If the Foundation is unable to make the other projects as widely known as Wikipedia, I don't think that merging everything under the Wikipedia name could improve the situation and make people aware of the other projects. In fact, I think this could make everything worse... And I'm not even speaking here about the perpetual confusion between the local chapters and the linguistic versions. As a member of Wikimedia France, I sometimes feel a bit like Sisyphus, although the situation slowly improves, year after year. Litlok (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  239.   Strong oppose - this would give the impression that the WMF runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, and considering 'Framgate' and previous issues, that would be a negative change from the status quo. Plus, the aforementioned issue of drawing attention away from already lesser viewed projects makes this clearly an idea that would do harm instead of do good. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  240.   Strong oppose the reasons are so many and sostrong... Among them: Promoting confusion between the Wikimedia movement, and the Wikipedia project; adopting the name of an aging and quite problematic Wikimedia project to serve as umbrella for all others, therefore extending that bad name and bad reputation to them; duping ppl into believe they are donating for Wikipedia, when in fact they are donating to Wikimedia; placing strong, independent projects on the rise, such as Wikidata and Wikimedia Commmons under the brand "Wikipedia", something that will not be appreciated by their communities for sure; etc. etc. this was a very bad idea from the start, and it's a shame taht apparently a lot of money has already been wasted to promote it around, when there are so many urgent needs in the Wikimedia movement.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  241.   Oppose The communities have built Wikipedia. This is the part, which people link to the name Wikipedia. The part of the Foundation is to support the communities. This should not be mixed. --Belladonna* (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  242.   Oppose Lots of good reasons not to do this have been given above. I see no real advantage to the plan & much confusion created. Pashley (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  243.   Oppose Everything has already been said.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  244.   Oppose this would lead to far more new confusion than there – KPFC💬 13:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  245.   Strong oppose Les éditeurs et les communités résidant dans des pays avec des niveaux de liberté réduits (ou des lois arbitraires), comme les pays arabes, pourraient être pris comme "responsables éditoriaux" des contenus polémiques ou controversés. --Tifratin (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  246.   Oppose few positive outcome for too much noise and problems ahead. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  247.   Strong oppose Definitely not for me ,For all of the above reasons --Rachidourkia (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  248.   Strong oppose Wikimedia is so much more than Wikipedia. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  249.   Oppose - Given we have sister projects such as WikiVoyage, Wikidata, Commons, Wikinews etc IMHO it would be a very bad idea to rename to Wikipedia, Whilst "Wikipedia" is predominately known that doesn't mean it should be the new name, Wikimedia is not Wikipedia and vice versa. –Davey2010Talk 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  250.   Oppose Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  251.   Oppose Bad idea and a poor use of resources. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  252.   Comment As long as IPs feel forced to create pages such as WP:Talk pages project to balance WP:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20—the video is nice, but old—this is an utter dubious plan. –84.46.53.84 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  253.   Oppose there are much more important things to do. einsbor talk 08:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  254.   Oppose --ESM (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  255.   Oppose - not a fan of Meta RfCs, but there seems to be nowhere else to say anything on the subject. I don't see much upside, there are many practical problems, and from what I can tell there is only little lukewarm support within the broader movement as well as lots of vocal opposition. The WMF should listen to this and stop. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  256.   Strong oppose I strongly think that is the most explicit evidence of why the Wikimedia Foundation should be dissolved and the sovereignty given back to the volunteering, real movement. I attach the three worst grievances seen so far related with the branding process:
     
    The insane amount of money spent in Wolf Ollins' consultancy was used to compare our free-knowledge projects with the "reference" of big-techs.
     
    This is how easily the WMF staff is able to ignore and manipulate the feedback from stateless affiliates to adapt it to their will.
     
    The "Brand architecture" uniterally built by the WMF in Nov. 2018 already considers the deletion and fusion of several Wikimedia projects. The recommendations and the whole Strategy 2030 are lies to keep us busy while they just proceed for money.
    I hope this massive opposition is just the start to open the eyes of many, restart the movement from scratch, and reject all the sterile structure that has been built to just host staff positions of power and money. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 14:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  257.   Strong oppose - There are too many downsides. The WMF isn't just Wikipedia, we should make sure that this is known. InvalidOS (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  258.   Strong oppose --Oesterreicher12 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  259.   Oppose - First I had the opinion that its ok, if Wikimedia use the brand Wikipedia. But the Movement has nothing to do with Wikipedia. So, sorry i have to say no to this Movement now calling Wikipedia. Dont call it Wikipedia, where no Wikipedia is in. --BotBln (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  260.   Oppose The usurping of "Wikipedia" is dishonest. Wikipedia is generally meant to be encyclopedias in different languages produced by separate generally self-governing editorial communities. Other projects have different aims. It is difficult to read these documents, as anything but an attempt to co-opt the Wikipedia's image to mislead others, editorially and in substance. Thus, it will damage the community and the communities of the community. Worse, it will lead to distrust, as in, how can we trust a process is seen to just seek 'confirmation bias' of what the tiny-group of brand-workers who have to justify their existence have already fixed on, regardless of the community members. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  261.   Strong oppose - The WMF is not Wikipedia, has never been Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not the WMF, and has never been the WMF. This is like asking if we should rename "red" as "green" because some people can't tell red from green appart. Wikimedia/WMF is a perfectly fine brand, and that random people on the streets don't understand the difference between Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki, generic wikis, WikiMedia Commons, Wikibooks, and so on is completely irrelevant to anything, and just about the worse reason to usurp the identity of its most succesful project, and will further cause confusion because when we say Wikipedia, we most definetely don't mean the WMF. If there are branding issues, then address them by making 'Wikimedia' a stronger brand. This and this are easy things to do. Also this. If it is ultimately decided that 'Wikimedia' is a bad/undesirable name, then rebrand as something clearly not Wikipedia, like the WikiMovement Foundation (to keep WMF as an acronym), or the Free Knowledge Foundation or whatever. Headbomb (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  262.   Oppose I highly appreciate the concept of Wikimedia as a whole consisting of several media delivering free knowledge, namely the Wikimedia projects, and there is definitely no need for navel-gazing solely on Wikipedia. Assigning the most popular project priority directly contradicts the ultimate goal of the Wikimedia movement to serve the entire world with free knowledge (for instance, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata are very good examples of projects that already have more items than Wikipedia and their content is widely used outside the Wikimedia projects).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  263.   Oppose I love what Kiril Simeonovski wrote. He nails the coffin of the idea of rebranding. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  264. Of course not, the movement is a lot broader than free encyclopaedias. If "Wikimedia" is too close to "Wikipedia", there are probably a lot of alternatives ("Free Wiki Foundation"?). Kusma (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  265. What Kusma said, i.e. definitely no. --Segelschulschiff Pyramus (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  266.   Strong oppose--Kaethe17 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  267.   Strong oppose Ei kiitos. --Epiq (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  268.   Strong oppose Simply No! --Enock4seth (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  269.   Strong oppose Wikipedia is one of projects, this doesn't make sense. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  270.   Oppose It's already confusing for most people as it is (Wikimedia/Wikipedia). Sadko (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  271.   Oppose The WMF would be wearing borrowed plumes. From a marketing perspective, it might be attractive to use the name of the most successful project. But it is a very disingenuous move that furthers the confusion when it comes the WMF and what the Foundation is all about. -- O.Koslowski (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  272.   Oppose. —— Eric Liu留言百科用戶頁 09:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  273.   Oppose Please don't. Or change to something like "Wikimovement". In fact, we always say that we're not "only Wikipedia", doing this would be highly unproductive. --GrandCelinien (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  274.   Strong oppose ! Datsofelija (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  275.   Oppose- AvatarFR (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  276.   Oppose In agreement with the many thoughtful and sensible arguments above Mwarf (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  277.   Oppose --Sacamol (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  278.   Strong oppose - two different groups. one changed the world. Denis Barthel (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  279. It would make a confusion between the community and the fundation that supports it.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  280.   Strong oppose Wasted money for a very confusing and disruptive rebranding. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  281.   Strong oppose. --Warp3 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC).
  282.   Strong oppose. Romuald 2 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  283.   Strong oppose Confusing and harmful for the notoriety of Wikiquote, Wiktionary and other Wikimedia projects in general. --Cosmophilus (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  284.   Strong oppose another step in wrong direction (very related to Strategy process)--Barcelona (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  285. Please no. We could use the money for much better things. This is not worth it. Trijnsteltalk 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  286.   Oppose It will sound like it's only supporting Wikipedia. Bobbyshabangu (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  287.   Strong oppose. DGG puts it so well there's practically nothing left to be said except that the distinction between the WMF and Wikipedia should be made even more clear, and the powers of the WMF and the way it handles the funds should be significantly reduced and devolved to the volunteer projects that provide the work that raises the funds in the first place. The WMF has become a salaried socio-political movement on the money created by an encyclopedia which it does not sufficiently support; there's something wrong there. Kudpung (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  288.   Oppose per the other 288 people above me, most of whom have adequately explained the numerous reasons why this is a bad idea. ONUnicorn (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  289.   Oppose No need to change name. Suggestion : rebrand "Wikimedia Foundation" as "Wiki Free Foundation", this would reduce confusion between Wikipedia and the Foundation. Google did it with its Alphabet company, why not the WMF ? Challwa (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  290.   Oppose --Killarnee (TRP) 18:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  291.   Oppose Wikipedia (like all other affiliated projects) are the editors, not the staff people. -- Maclemo (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  292.   OpposeOdjob16 Talk 05:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  293.   Strong oppose. Agreeing with many, many arguments presented before, and just adding (because I didn't see it) that in some particular countries or regions, some people could be more exposed, even put in danger, being directly associated with Wikipedia, while under the Wikimedia umbrella, those people might have some degree of separation that also brings a layer of protection. Please don't do this, it just seems like a really bad idea. 3BRBS (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  294. Definitely, not. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  295.   Oppose No way man, it will lead to confusion. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  296.   Oppose see also: Comments on the Rebranding Strategy Grijz (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC) (Frans Grijzenhout, chair WMNL and moderator of the chairpersons meeting of November 10, 2019)
  297.   Strong oppose. Many readers and even Wikimedia community members still do not know much about the sister projects. And a rename would it made much harder to get noticed. The sister projects are not deserved to end up as a small footnote - respectively a smaller footnote than they are right now already. -- DerFussi 14:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  298. Why not renaming Wikimedia/WMF, but   Strong oppose to the use of Wikipedia brand for it, just because WM isn't WP. --Framawiki (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  299.   Oppose The rebranding doesn't help the movement. However, if Wikipedia was a hub to the resources, that would be something better :
    • Wikipedia
      • Encyclopedia
      • Dictionary
      • Medias
      • Data
    And so on, this would be a proposal to discuss. The rebranding will just confuse people. Berlekemp (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  300.   Oppose I was against the idea, and I did not change my mind in the meantime (but I had no preconceived opinion). I don't see a lot of problem with the "Wikimedia" brand in the current communication strategy. It took time but there is not as much confusion as in the past. When I analyze the situation now compared to 2015, I can say in some countries it has greatly improved, and I think it can in the other ones. maybe it could help somewhere but it's just a phase. Giving real ressources helps more. I aslo see more confusion created from this change in the future because people have already problems now to grasp the difference between a legal entity and a free movement, it's such a delicate balance. Plus, I am a cross-project user and I don't think Wikipedia should be the core name in general, they have difference nature. Plus, Wikidata became as important as Wikipedia quickly and Commons and (in certain countries) Wikisource show some recognition. My position of respect of projects is a functional not "ideological" one, I think that in the future we might see the projects evolve further, for example we might have a more enlarged Commons with also texts with structured data, or integrate Wikispecies in Wikidata. Their current lack of recognition is actually mostly due IMHO to an excessive fragmentation in language projects and platforms than to the names that we use. I don't dislike the use of "WikiCommons" (instead of "Wikimedia Commons"), but I wish that renaming could be the first step to the creation of more structured and bigger platforms. I say so because I don't think projects are sacred in their individuality, I switch from one to another also because for me they are a continuum and I think they can evolve, but this aspect should be the underlying long-term strategy of a rebranding. This "Wikipedia as global brand" idea instead sounds just cheap to me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  301.   No. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  302.   Oppose. Wikipedia is the community. Foundation exist to support the community. It is not the community. The foundation could be renamed to be Wikipedia Foundation, but this would require that then all the sister project would be named accordingly, too: Wikipedia Data, Wikipedia Commons, Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia University etc. This was proposed maybe 10 years ago but it didn't go forward. --Teemu (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  303.   Oppose Absolutely not. --Nitraus (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  304.   Oppose The rebranding won't remove confusion, it will add to it. Saguameau (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  305.   Strong oppose per the many reasons listed above. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  306.   Strong oppose, discussed this before several times, once with a WMF staff who came to India to discuss officially in a not so serious way about rebranding strategy. My opposition still stands. If you cant do good to sister projects needing desparate supports, at least dont try hard to nail on their coffins. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  307. No, most definitely, no.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  308.   Oppose Tomasz Raburski (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  309.   Oppose Anthere (talk)
  310.   Oppose. Would create more/different confusion, and diminish the diminish the value of sister projects - Evad37 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  311.   Oppose WMF is cancer and this is another sad effort to cash in on whatever goodwill they can find. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  312.   Oppose because of strong legal risk for the Chapter when the name as the organisation is equal to the Wikipedia as described in Comments on the Rebranding Strategy. There is mismatch of meaning leading to further misunderstanding. The Wikipedia is only one single aspect of the Community. The Community is much larger than the encyclopedia. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC), Chairman, and representing Wikimedia Belgium in this matter.
  313.   Strong oppose: very bad idea Gdarin | talk 12:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  314.   Oppose Gżdacz (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  315.   Oppose per Raymond, Mautpreller et al. --Bubo 21:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  316.   Oppose per above. --Zenith4237 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  317.   Oppose I'm sorry for my english, but I think: "The wikimedia-foundation is not only responsible for wikipedia but for all wikimedia-wikis." or so in better english sounds better than: "The wikipedia-foundation is not only responsible for wikipedia but for all wikipedia-wikis." or so. --MannMaus (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  318.   Oppose --Teukros (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  319.   Oppose People, people, it is terrifying. The servers regularly experience downtimes, in some countries Wikimedia editors are being prosecuted or Wikimedia are blocked altogether. And the staff sees no better idea to spend money on than hiring a very expensive branding company to get advice on how to change one letter in the name? The money, let me remind, already collected mainly by the means of deceiving the donators that they actually help to develop Wikipedia? Moreover, if I understood it properly, the staff calculates the support for this idea by counting all the discussion viewers who did not word their opposal as agreeing, which is the worst case of voting fraud. It makes an impression of displaying strong authoritarian sentiments, whereas I always imagined Wikipedia as a refugium of meritocracy. I suppose that all the people responsible for this swamp should lose their jobs in WMF immediately. --Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  320.   Oppose Wostr (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  321.   Oppose IOIOI (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  322.   Oppose normally I think of rebranding exercises as marketing people wanting to put their stamp on things, and in the process wasting a lot of other people’s money. But with the rise of Wikidata this proposal is a bit like Volkswagen looking at the early success of the Golf and deciding it was time to rebrand the company “Beetle”. Worse it could give the WMF and others false confidence that it knows, care for and understands Wikipedia as well as it thinks it does rather than as badly as it actually does. Respect to anyone in the WMF who thought that this would help build bridges between the WMF and the community, the aspiration is worthy even if the execution is counterproductive. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  323.   Oppose Please, try to see that separate names is MORE clear and fair. Waste of money, except for the people trying to make a living out of the wiki's. What's next, integrate everything? Personally, I'm not keen to be forced under the Wikipedia umbrella again. --PiefPafPier (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  324.   Strong oppose La fondation Wikimédia est censée être au service de ses projets, et non l'inverse. Je ne vois pas comment un tel changement de nom pourrait être bénéfique aux projets. — The Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to serve its projects, not the other way around. I can't see how such a change of name would serve the projects. Grasyop 09:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  325.   Strong oppose --Piotr967 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  326.   Strong oppose Apparently just looking at this page without commenting may be counted as »support« – something that moves my »oppose« to »strongly oppose« because that is downright Orwellian. There is no way to tell what someone who just reads but doesn't comment, actually thinks about the proposal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sprachraum (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2020‎
  327.   Oppose It's important and valuable that the two remain clearly distinct. This whole "branding" exercise is a waste of time and effort. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  328.   Strong oppose Three argued points : diversity and hints vs confusing simplicity ; take your time to learn and master the richness of this diversity ; deal with the necessity of brands, do not cope with its philosophy. • Everything is not as simple as advertisers would like us to believe, and that's why there are different names. Given some time (!), some readings with explanations, everybody can understand the various hints behind the diverse names. Wikimedia embraces something larger than just the wikipedias, etc, you all here know this story. But for the public not engaged in producing some minute effort for understanding this (why a priori should he?), this will takes to it a bit more time, that's okay ; but are we in a hurry ? Definitely no. Moreover, changing "WMF" into some "WPF" will not clarify anything to these persons. But more surely, it will definitely darken it to the majority of the lightly engaged practitioners ; and this is very damaging. • Keep the variety, this is the law of life ; we'll have to learn a bit more for a bit longer, but this is the current direction of evolution for the present humanity, isn't it. • One last thing, in particular about what is the aim of life of a brand consultancy agency : brand system has not been invented for enlightening knowledge and sharing ideas ; on the opposite side of collaboration, it was crafted for marking territories, what /belongs/ to me and not to you, etc, here with names and logos. It's a legal response to defend industrial property. Though we need it, because the modern world only refers to rules of belonging, we need not to play the game about its "values", such as simplify the namings in order to more easily « mark more impressionable brains », which, all this, is totally antagonistic to our own ethic values system. --Eric.LEWIN (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  329.   Oppose--Arbnos (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  330.   Oppose --TeleD (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  331.   Oppose --Krd 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  332.   Oppose Don't tarnish Wikipedia with the WMF's reputation. Dismiss all the salaried employees and agents who proposed this, and use the money saved to support Wikipedia and the other volunteer-based projects that built the brands. EddieHugh (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  333.   Oppose Improving the foundation's "brand" is not an important goal, doing this will not achieve that goal, and it will have negative consequences. PJvanMill (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  334.   Strong oppose It would only add to the existing confusion. Wikipedia is obviously better known than Wikimedia, but that problem is not solved by the latter usurping the name of the former. -- UKoch (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  335.   Oppose It's no necessary, it's a waste of time and money, it's confusing because wikimedia is not only wikipedia. I don't see any substantial advantage in the rename. --Jordi G (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  336.   Strong oppose “Apple” would be a better brand name: it's even more famous. Jonathan.renoult (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  337.   Oppose. The Wikimedia Foundation should refer to itself as either "the Wikimedia Foundation", "(the) WMF", "the Foundation", or "the foundation". Anything else would not be accurate either factually or legally. I don't know why WMF doesn't have lawyers to tell them these things. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  338.   Oppose. Schazjmd above nails it: "You can't fix the finding that "Wikimedia is less understood" by using a name that is well understood to be something else." Dank (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  339.   Oppose See Schazjmd. Curiously Google did exactly the opposite by introducing Alphabet as its company brand to distinguish from the service named google. Why should Wikimedia use the name of a single service and as a consequence confuse everyone? Why does Wikimedia need to be well known anyway? It's not a profit-orientated company that sells something. Again I have the feeling the WMF is living in a bubble and the only external voices they're listingen to sometimes are those of some questionable business consultants. Please stop making up problems that don't exist and listen to the community. --StYxXx (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OtherEdit

  • Comment-It appears that this name change will serve to endorse Hegelian organizational thought. It would be as if Catholics renamed one of their organizations to a manner that only fit with Dominican or Franciscan lingo; other epistemological frameworks would be rejected. It also has implications for governance, see en:Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Other. Towards this end, it would help if the WMF would explicitly clarify whether or not they support Hegelian organizational philosophy, reject it in favor of a different system, or want editors to vote on what it should be. We are given only a small piece of information with the proposed name change; I suspect that other editors might be less suspicious if they weren't assuming this is just the tip of the iceberg because everything else is under the surface.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A Modest Proposal: Use "Wikipedia" for the websites ("English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia", etc. as needed) and "the Wikipedia Foundation" (WF? See [1]) for what we now call the WMF. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Guy Macon: That is, in fact, the WMF's proposal. --Yair rand (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    In which case, this RfC should be immediately closed and vacated as being invalid on the grounds that the title "Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia" is misleading and designed to push people's buttons and get a particular response. (Checks to see who picked the title.) As I suspected. The title was not chosen and the RfC was not posted by anyone with (WMF) in their username. It was chosen by someone who, in my opinion, is a concern troll. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    No. Look through the responses. Everyone understood what the question is, namely "Wikimedia Foundation > Wikipedia Foundation?". Seb az86556 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, I don't think there was much confusion here. The rebranding discussion has been going on in multiple places for a year, and presumably those who weren't previously familiar with the WMF proposal clicked on the links in the background section. --Yair rand (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Yair rand and Seb az86556. Coffee // have a cup // 07:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Please see also the "Snøhetta and Wikimedia" Wikimedia-l thread. EllenCT (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess to expand a bit, as a rule, don't trust the opinion of "branding" people on the importance of branding, because their primary purpose is to sell you on the importance of branding itself.
As I've said before, it is already exceptionally difficult to explain to people the difference between the various projects and the Foundation itself. There is no one who has contributed to OTRS who hasn't had to explain that the Foundation is not going to step down and change their article or delete their picture. There is not a week that goes by where user's don't wind up at c:COM:HD without realizing their on Commons at all, and where user's find their way to some Commons noticeboard or other asking us to enforce editorial decision making on other co-equal projects.
At the end of the day, we don't really need branding because we're not selling anything. People don't use our projects because they are branded well; they use our projects because they are useful. It doesn't matter how good your branding is if the projects aren't useful, and it doesn't really matter how bad it is so long as they are. If you want to improve "the brand" then you should care more about helping us to continue to improve the projects, and you should care less if at all about what's on the letterhead in your office. GMGtalk 14:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely well said, everything above is completely accurate. @Doc James:, as a board member, are you supporting this attempted change, and if so, why, given the resistance and predicted issues? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
As an example, please god, I've been saying this for at least two years now, take whatever money you're spending on this inanity and hire a full time community-side programmer, just to respond to requests from the community to fix and maintain the tools and gadgets we use cross-wiki. Half of the most used tools on Commons are barely maintained or entirely unmaintained and abandoned, regardless of how widely used they are, and that's a major project. On smaller projects it's even worse. There is not a single admin on the English Wikiquote who is a bot operator, or who knows how to use edit filters. As far as I'm aware, I may be the only admin there who is comfortable with even range blocks. We wouldn't even have bot archiving of our centralized noticeboards if User:MarcoAurelio hadn't offered to set it up for us a few months ago. When it comes to major maintenance projects that could be done by bot, we have literally nothing and no one. GMGtalk 15:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
In Wikivoyage, there are tools, for example, related to maps, which are abandoned, because somebody developed them, retired many years ago, and in Wikivoyages across all the languages there is not a single person who can revive them.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Nosebagbear I have previously stated that organizations should be free to rebrand around Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia as they see fit but should not be forced to do so. And I believe that this should also apply to the WMF. When I was part of Wikimedia Canada, I often had other organizations ask "you mean Wikipedia Canada right?"
With respect to "community programmers", yes we need these. I was somewhat disappoint when the community tech team announced that they would only work on none Commons, none Wikidata, none Wikipedia projects, not because those projects should not get their support but because we should really have 2 community tech teams. One for Commons / Wikipedia and one for the other projects. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Are these abandoned tools listed somewhere and the necessary updates documented? A few volunteers might be willing to help with that if we were aware of the details. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 04:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Aron Manning: Well, there's certainly no triage list that wouldn't put c:Commons:Flickr2Commons far and away at the top, as far as widely used tools that have been unmaintained for years now. There are also other issue where it's not clear that volunteers can help at all. c:Commons:video2commons has been blacklisted by Google/YouTube since around November. The tool is actually maintained, but it's not clear that Google has any interest in responding to emails from "some volunteer" to fix the issue, whereas if the Foundation decided to throw their weight around a little bit, we could probably have the situation fixed in a matter of hours or days. GMGtalk 15:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Also repinging @Doc James: in case anyone on the board has an interest in throwing their weight around to get this fixed. If I had realized this was a problem in November, I would have asked Google myself in Boston. GMGtalk 15:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
User:GreenMeansGo can you send me details on what the issue is regarding "video2commons"? By "blacklisted" you mean the tool will not work on Youtube even when the video is by the US government and thus public domain? What change would google need to do? Do we just need access to a specific API? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: who surely understands the details better than I. GMGtalk 20:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes the foundation is throwing their weight, and yes Google is responding; however it's not going anywhere because Google things we are violating their ToS, and what they offers instead violates our privacy policy. Blacklist is for the whole cloud services; the entire cloud services is unable to access YouTube without captcha repeatedly. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
So what is required from Google User:Zhuyifei1999? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Whitelist, or at least stop blacklisting, WMCS IP. phab:T236446 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would probably support a design cleanup of the sites, making the design more consistent. I would probably also support a cleanup of the visually diverging logos. It is the mangling of a specific service name (Wikipedia) with the name of the service provider (Wikimedia Foundation) that I find troublesome. — Jeblad 17:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but someone needs to point out that the general public doesn’t care about non-Wikipedias. Those projects are mainly hobbiest things, while Wikipedias impact broader society and media. No one knows what Wikibooks is. People are just going to google a definition rather than go to Wiktionary. Wikivoyage is not going to be able to compete with TripAdvisor. We’re known for one thing. Just project that one thing to the public. Also, on the OTRS point: it’s not that hard to distinguish between a corporate entity and volunteers. All you’d have to do is change one letter in the template. People would be just as clueless as they are now, but not any more clueless. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, and there are good reasons for this (for example, from the perspective of Wikivoyage where I am an active editor - there are way less people interested in writing travel guides, even less people interesting in writing travel guides for free, and the competition is way stronger than anything Wikipedia has ever encountered). However, we are basically on our own, again, in Wikivoyage we got some limited help when we transferred it to WMF servers, and several years ago, after a lot of preliminary coordination, we managed get the maps on the Community wish list. (And in Russian Wikivoyage, where I am working, we do not even see the developers). This is it, everything else we are basically doing by our own means. One of the main problems, if not the main one - is that the mobile version of Wikivoyage is unreadable - we just can not solve it by ourselves, and we probably have to stay a hobby project.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Many people enjoy writing travel guides. It is just the editor base is split across two projects (the original Wikitravel and the WMF-run Wikivoyage. The content of each site cannibalises each other which confuses readers and hurts the SEO rankings of both sites. Before the split, the Alexa ranking was 2,500 (not far behind TripAdvisor and Lonely Planet at the time). There are heaps of people who write travel guides in the form of blogs, travel forums, social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) who would help out if they knew Wikivoyage existed. DaGizza (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    I had a teacher who frequently used and recommended a rather useful section of Wikibooks. Sometimes these things are more widely used than you might think. — Bilorv (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, Wikibooks and Wiktionary are much more commonly used that many people here seem to realise. People on the internet do not inherently enjoy writing encyclopedic articles more than other types of content. It is just that Wikipedia was created earlier during the Web 2.0 boom and benefited from Google pushing it up in the search results. All of the smaller projects have much more potential than Wikipedia which has peaked already. DaGizza (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    I think this risks missing the central point of what the mission actually is. The mission is to make more knowledge more free for more people, not to build a popular website. That mission isn't limited to the encyclopedia format. If we're talking about the next 5 years, then en.wiki will certainly play an outlying role in the movement as a whole. If we're talking about the next 30 years, that will ideally fade, both in language and format. The archives at the University of Zurich and the Library of Congress aren't exactly competing with Twitter and Facebook in terms of popularity, but that's not their mission. GMGtalk 15:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, but even public institutions understand branding. Everyone here is discussing the internal implications, which quite frankly don’t matter. Externally, Wikipedia is vastly superior to “Wikimedia” and this RfC was started by an opponent without actually letting them spell out how it would be used. This is basically just an exercise at being angry at the WMF for being substantively correct without even hearing out their actual plans for implementation, which they haven’t done. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    It frequently happens that outsiders already try to criticize the WMF for various Wikipedia policies that result in deletionism without the WMF being responsible for those policies. It's helpful to provide an outside appearance that helps people understand that the WMF and the individual Wikipedia's aren't the same to help people avoid that confusion.
It matters that Wikimedia Germany isn't legally responsible for the content of the German Wikipedia for dealing with outside parties.
The fact that the WMF makes a plan like this without explaining it's plan publicly is a problem with the WMF and not with the way this post was made. The same goes for the fact that the WMF didn't clarify their position in this thread. ChristianKl❫ 22:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Jonesey95, I acknowledge your point on the wording of the RFC. However I think everyone is interpreting this RFC as regarding support or opposition for the name change itself. Per NOTBUREAUCRACY, the issue respondents are actually debating is more important than any procedural or linguistic quibble with how the question was phrased. I humbly suggest that you move your response to the oppose section for clarity. Your point on language remains equally valid, wherever you put it. It would be a nuisance to have to manually adjust the support/oppose counts or percentage when citing this RFC for its clear intended meaning. Alsee (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • In line with that, @Jonesey95:, it seems a case where it's permissable for them to do something, but we feel its unacceptable on other grounds (in many Community/WMF disputes that ends up as moral, but I don't think the dispute has yet escalated to those dramatic grounds) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • People casting votes based on what (or who) they thought they were voting for instead of what (or who) they were actually voting for has caused a significant amount of trouble in the English-speaking world over the last five years. I cast my votes (or !votes, if you insist) based on what is presented to me. Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm troubled by the consultation summary, which reports "0.6% of informed [editors] oppose[d] (57 users oppose[d] of ~9,000 reached)", operating under the baseless assumption that an editor who viewed the talk page but did not comment was not opposed to the proposal. I frequently view discussions with the intent of writing a comment but find another editor has expressed the point far better than I could have done – which could very well have been the case for some of the 9000-odd editors who viewed the talk page. – Teratix 10:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's somewhat amusing that in less than two days 57 opposing statements came in whereas only 9 supports were given. There seems to be something seriously wrong with the format of "community review" the branders used. If you want participation - here it is. I predict that many more ooposing statements will arrive.Mautpreller (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question: Would it be possible that "Wikimedia Commons" then gets the name "Wikimedia"? It is the Wiki for the mediafiles like Wikibooks is for books and Wikidata for data. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons will most probably renamed to WikiCommons, which I approve of. --h-stt !? 20:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The consultation presentation says that will be up to the Commons community, and outside the scope of the rebranding project. EllenCT (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: Personal opinion: I like the idea of Commons becoming WikiMedia. "Commons" is so confusing as it has nothing to do with media. However, I assume many of us are attached to the "Commons" name, so that will remain. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 06:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If the foundation and the encyclopedia are both named Wikipedia, the confusion will be even more, it will be even more difficult to explain to people that the foundation and the encyclopedia are different, fulfill different objectives inside the project. Wikisource, Wikibooks will be even more marginalized and unknown and the concept of commons as a stock photo service for all projects will be even more obscure and arcane. OTOH: How about cycling through the names? The foundation is named wiktionary for one year, wikivoyage in the following year and so on? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a wider topic that goes beyong renaming Wikimedia Foundation. I think that WMF may choose any name they prefer; obviously this is a sensitive topic for Wikipedia's sister projects which will end up somewhat unrepresented in the Foundation's name. The big picture is what troubles me more though. Completely getting rid of the "Wikimedia" brand would be very harmful to local communities, such as chapters, user groups and unaffiliated informal Wikimedia teams. The term "Wikimedia" is useful for those because it implicitely states that they do not operate Wikipedia, nor are they legally responsible for its content. Many chapters have also successfully branded the word "Wikimedia" in their countries and total riddance of the word and the logo should be consulted more thoroughly both with chapters and other communities. I also find it difficult to understand why this idea was not part of the standard strategic process which has just taken place. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I really don't like when the Wikimedia movement is treated through a kind of business model that put it in a trademark (or brand) competition. And when I see current aspiration for a "Global Gouvernance Body", I wonder... Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't quite fit together: on one hand they protest against the commercialisation of .org, and right so, in the other hand here they behave like an ordinary business enterprise instead of a community that we are. We are no business, not even a non-profit, we are an NGO. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The resistance to this renaming comes from two directions. The first is from the Wikipedia communities, who object to this because they see it as the Foundation attempting to exploit Wikipedia's success without having contributed anything tangential to it. (Yeah, they run the servers & maintain the software. But other than that...) The other is from all the non-Wikipedia communities who have long suspected that the Foundation is not at all interested in their success & see this as a first step to deprecating them entirely. In fact, there has been much friction between the Wikipedia & the non-Wikipedia communities over who gets the better deal, & this proposal has managed to unite these two otherwise uncooperative groups! From the response this proposal has received, it's clear that in practically any other organization it would have been a career-limiting move. -- Llywrch (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is another name that would achieve the aim of benefiting from Wikipedia's high profile and also counter one of the main criticisms of the current suggestion. Rename it the Notonlywikipedia Foundation. Nurg (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The servers for WikiData have lags of hours and hours for weeks and months already, and all the Foundation is working on is a marketing plan to rebrand there name? They better become politicians, instead of technicians. Politicians are known for solving problems they invented thereselves with money they don't have. Technicians solve issues that they have seen/measured. Edoderoo (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
And the sister Wikimedia projects that are not Wikipedia, Commons or Wikidata terribly look the same as 2008 or 2010. They created an infrastructure of paid staff with little or no idea of the real needs of the different communities... to reach the point in which every year we need to beg them in a "Wishlist" for them to choose with desire they will accomplish. One decade after, they build a fake collaborative strategy process (which is ofc a lie), plus this waste of money on branding and then some make-up with a little improve on user usability and a whishlist for the othser Wikimedia projects. The WMF has definitely become a parasited NGO by people that just aims power, money or big-tech-like recognition. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 21:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Back in my Wikimedia Deutschland days, I used to mumble after the Wiki....--Schreibvieh (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by the FoundationEdit

Hi all, on behalf of the project team, I want to acknowledge the discussion and the concerns communicated. Our consultations are still underway, as we explore how to clarify who we are as a Movement in order grow participants in all projects and languages. The first of 3 workshops with community groups has just concluded in Oslo (you can review the agenda here), and we have more planned for India and online.

Naming discussions, which will explore how we might change Movement names, are scheduled for April. Nothing is decided and we will continue sharing information openly along the way.

This exploration has been approved by the Board for 2 years running and is included in the Foundation’s Annual Plan and Medium Term Plan.

You are invited to join the active working groups, and to engage draft concepts and designs as they become available. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The working groups are acting off-wiki, in spaces not under the auspices of the community. Off-wiki discussions are not a valid way of establishing consensus.
"Nothing is decided" is also quite incorrect. The community has clearly decided that rebranding under the Wikipedia brand is not an acceptable option. --Yair rand (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
(Okay, sorry, I know you meant nothing has been decided yet by the project team, but I wanted to make the point that that team doesn't really get to make the decision in the first place. That was probably more snarky than ideal. --Yair rand (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC))
@ZMcCune (WMF): would you please clarify the apparent difference between what you wrote eleven months ago, that "In the proposed brand strategy, Wikipedia would be redefined to encompass the entire movement’s identity," and your statement here that "nothing is decided"? That also contrasts with your statement at the April community consultation teleconference, when you said at 31:55, "This is the space for dialog now around considering dropping Wikimedia and adopting Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that there are not several months more of discussions about how Wikipedia would be used if it were -- if people decide that's what we are going to do. So this is the time to discuss, like, this juncture of decision making, kind of, Wikipedia versus Wikimedia." At what point in the process would such a decision be definitively made, and who are you asking to make it? EllenCT (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: The brand strategy, shared 26 February 2019, collected research into the status of Wikimedia brands, and offered a recommendation based on that research to use Wikipedia as a tool to help the movement reach its 2030 goals. It outlined sunsetting the Wikimedia name, which the research found created confusion with Wikipedia and was not well-known. It also outlined using the Wikipedia name as the central part of the movement names, including affiliates and projects.
How these new names should be developed, including how Wikipedia would be used in these names, was not part of the brand strategy. That naming exploration is to be done in this process, collaboratively with project participants and shared for comment with Wikimedia groups, in April.
The outcomes of the naming discussions, like the outcomes of this entire project, are opt-in for affiliates. We expect groups will examine if and when they would like to adopt new branding materials. ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF): Since you featured in your agenda the Oslo Opera House as a "symbol of inclusion and democracy", do you plan on on fully including the very democratic results of this RFC in your decision (and without using strange counting calculations such as how many people view the RFC)? If so, how much weight will you be giving our voices? I don't think the statement that you all were planning on waiting till April to open this discussion up is really relevant to what the community members have stated here already (albeit I do understand why that might be relevant to your team), so I think you should probably treat this as if it's already (at least partially) happening. Many things don't go according to schedule, so I hope you weren't implying our opinions have to (especially given that you appeared to believe this discussion process was already underway last April). Coffee // have a cup // 04:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I would hope that the foundation would take this feedback into consideration. But I'm confused. Were they really suggesting rebranding themeslves as Wikipedia or as the Wikipedia Foundation? If the former (which is what this question asks) I would be opposed. But my understanding to date has been the latter which I would be in favor of. Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way about this distinction but given the pretty different set of opinions from when this was first discussed and now I suspect I am not the only one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
False: this is the issue: "Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?" if the answer is NO, the NO answer can't be obviated by the tendentious argument, they can still refer to themselves as 'Wikipedia Foundation' anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The voices on this page are part of the community feedback we have been collecting since last year, and we will continue review community comments in steering the project. ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF): How much is this all costing, and how much engineer time would that have bought instead? Jheald (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jheald: Considering the branding company has worked with Google for 9 years, helped launch the Uber brand, and has done work for Facebook, Amazon, Apple, 3M, GE, NBC Universal, Barclays, Expedia, Ritz-Carlton, BNP Paribas, CITI Group, and Credit Suisse (to name a few), I would venture this wasn't/won't be by any means cheap... which is why I'm sure some at the WMF won't want to see this idea become worthless (even though it was clearly dead on arrival). I'll note that this isn't the first time Wolff Olins has created a very expensive idea that flopped. That infamously terrible logo of the 2012 London Olympics was one of their ideas too, and it cost over $790,000 USD. It is unfortunate we likely wasted useful donations on this whole concept (that indeed could, and should, have been spent on our tech/engineering side), but that isn't a good reason for the WMF to plow forward with this idea (or to waste more money). Coffee // have a cup // 01:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation budget priorities are allocated by the CFO, ED and the Board of Trustees based on the 2030 strategic direction. Please feel free to comment and review the next round of annual planning which should be open for consultation in May. ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
That ladies and gentlemen, is what is called a nonanswer. Coffee // have a cup // 02:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
According to Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Overview/Timeline, the 2030 strategic direction is currently in a period of community discussion, and won't even be offered for board approval until late March of this year. So ZMcCune (WMF)'s answer has to be incorrect, unless the WMF is implementing a strategy that has yet to be accepted. TomDotGov (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF): At http://brandingwikipedia.org/ we can read: We are devising a new brand identity for our movement that uses Wikipedia’s name instead of Wikimedia as the center of this new brand system.. How is your statement answering tothis sentence? -Theklan (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF): Cite from brandingwikipedia.org: "Together our community has continued to innovate, finding new ways to create, collect, and share knowledge. On the website the bold words are typeset in a font that renders 4 cm high on my monitor -- much larger than most of the rest of the text. How does the "create" bit mesh with Wikpedia's policy on original research? ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@KaiMartin: The "create" verb there is meant to include the work of community members who author new tools and media. That would include photographers, videographers, and other media makers who create and shared new works on Wikimedia Commons, and developers/software creators who create new tools and platforms. I welcome improvements on how to better indicate the inclusion of these types of knowledge work in our Movement. ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel like this brings up one of the most potentially difficult confusions: Wikimedia Foundation policies include the Terms of Use with serious legal repercussions used to prevent paid and other conflicted interest advocacy, while Wikipedia policies are very different and disjoint, and specifically forbid even oblique discussion of most legal implications (i.e. "no legal threats") if the Foundation is renamed Wikipedia, this could cause serious problems with people referring to "Wikipedia policy." EllenCT (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is true but even if it is seems easily solved if they are called the Wikipedia Foundation rather than Wikipedia. So you'd have Wikipedia Policies and Wikipedia Foundation Policies or just Foundation Policies. ZMcCune (WMF) Can you clarify, has the foundation been considering shortening to just Wikipedia as part of this branding effort or was the idea to rebrand more around the Wikipedia name rather than shortening to it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: As Zack clarified here earlier, we have concluded on using Wikipedia in the new brand system but how these new names should be developed, including how Wikipedia would be used in these names, was not part of the brand strategy. That naming exploration is to be done in this process, collaboratively with project participants and shared for comment with Wikimedia groups, in April. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF): Is this going to be like the mailing list debacle in which you declared that since 9000 people were sent an email, anything less than *1800 people responding to a mass email* would be considered strong support of the branding name change? Wouldn't it be more respectful of the community to not asks for comments in the first place, given that I have a better chance of becoming the King of the Morlocks than WMF actually doing anything but what they've already decided to do?CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A constructive proposal: The Wiki FoundationEdit

When first consulted about this move, I proposed to be called The Wiki Foundation, and I still think is a good idea:

  • Because The Wiki Foundation helps Wikipedia, Wikimedia (aka Commons), Wikidata, Wikivoyage, Wik(i)tionary. Even Wikimeta.
  • Becuase it develops the MediaWiki software (that could be rebranded)
  • Becuase it is a natural abbreviation: we even say wiki! when we take a group photo
  • Because is identified as our brand, without doubt. Even products using wiki technology outside our movement are often identified with Wikimedia because they use our technology
  • Because it doesn't create problems of misidentification in countries where a Wikipedia Group may be charged because of the content of Wikipedia.
  • Becuase we can take the   and make it the symbol to unify all our products.

I still think this is the best move. Please, consider it. -Theklan (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Wikipedia and other projects are not "products". Regards. — Jules Talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
My idea was about products outside our movement (Wikia as an example). -Theklan (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That would be an alternative. However, there may be trademark issues. Turb (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I sort of like this idea! Moreover, even if it is not your cup of tea at first, it is indeed very commendable and constructive to look at alternatives beyond the Wikipedia / Wikimedia binary, which is exactly what the WMF should be doing at this stage, and what we should all be talking about instead of the divisive imposition of one name that has been pre-decided. I can easily think of a dozen other alternatives as well, and this would make for a fruitful discussion, although I do think "Wiki Foundation" has some particular merit. Let's not be blinded by the need to trademark everything, there are a lot of successful international non-profits who do not have buzzy neologisms in their names.--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I like it too. TESS says there are no trademark issues; go for it! EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I also am fully in support of this idea... I proposed in on the Wikimedia IRC channels before even seeing User:Theklan's well stated proposal. Coffee // have a cup // 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Another great thing is that it would keep open "Wikimedia" for Commons of they want that. EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: Yes, making much more sense. -Theklan (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
My big concern with this idea is that there are plenty of non-Wikimedia projects out there (wiki or not) that associate with the name "wiki" (Wikia, WikiLeaks, WikiTribune, to name a few...and only one of 'em is actually a wiki). People already have a ton of trouble telling the difference between Wikimedia projects and non-Wikimedia projects; even after all these years, people (including the occasional journalist and politican) still think WikiLeaks is a Wikipedia project and that we're under Russian influence. Renaming to Wiki Foundation disassociates the Foundation from the Wikimedia movement, and associates it more with everything else out there. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As Turb says, there might be trademark issues. Not in the way that there would be already a trademark, but the other way round: "Wiki" has become a generic term that probably can't be trademarked (as SuperHamster says, there are tons of wikis calling themselves some sort of "wiki" whilst not having any connection to Wikimedia), so - could "Wiki Foundation"? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know if anyone else's trademark could block us from getting it, but we should be able to trademark the whole thing (much like Facebook etc). I think it's a good name - I'd be happy with this. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I like this very much. Sounds cool too, compared to the goofy "Wikipedia Foundation". Finally a constructive idea! —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. See Gestumblindi. :-) "Wiki" is too general, most wikis are not Wikimedia wikis , and some can be even damaging for our reputation. Ziko (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Even if it does sound better, I really   Strong oppose on wasting money on any marketing rebrandings, it doesn't matter the name. Changes that are not driven by structured transimission of the Wikimedia values are just loosing resources that come from voluntary donations. There is no make-up possible when the basic problems are that 1) we are reaching a point in which the Wikimedia Foundation is hiring massively and its own staff do not know (and neither want) the values of volunteering and their communities; 2) the projects cannot convince anymore the youngest layers of society as the investments are not being addressed to the interfaces and accessibility that the 21st-century societies need; and 3) the Wikimedia movement is quickly separating from the Wikimedia Foundation decision-making as this body is becoming increasingly antidemocratic, opaque and centralised in the US capitalist, anglocentrism. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 18:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I like the idea. I guess some people may think that the "Wiki Foundation" would sound silly as it is referring to specific "tech", but truly from the branding perspective it would be good. It is a short word that works well in many languages. It would also unify all the sister project and balance their importance in the movement. For instance, I think the Wikidata is today much more in the core of our strategy than the old Wikipedia (we all love). Please, consider this. --Teemu (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose The wiki principle is outside our world, we can't hijack it. If the WMF does need a new name, it should invent one. --Ailura (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Constructive counter-proposalEdit

Why not just ditch the *Wiki* stuff altogether and aim as high as it gets? There seems to (have) exist(ed) a Free Knowledge Foundation already, whose name and aims seem to encompass just what the Wiki communities are all about. There is also an Open Knowledge Foundation and probably several more similarly named organizations. "Our" Foundation should perhaps just integrate with one of those. Or if a name is needed, what about "Foundation for Free Digital Knowledge"? --Segelschulschiff Pyramus (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Segelschulschiff Pyramus: Imho this proposal would be more appropriately named as "A constructive counter-proposal". Not even a counter, but a good alternative. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 06:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed. EllenCT (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposalEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Continue to use "Wikipedia" for the websites ("English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia", etc. as needed) and use "the Wikipedia Foundation" (WF? See [2]) for what we now call the WMF. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That is the proposal. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this section can be closed, since this is the original proposal.--AldnonymousBicara? 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can you confirm that numbers mean numbers?Edit

  • Dear @ZMcCune (WMF): - while we're discussing, could we confirm that you're not (or won't be) evaluating them with the kind of reasoning seen at This set of response KPIs, where anyone who didn't specifically oppose, but had viewed the page, was perceived as somehow supporting the page? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    I asked that question above, and it was conveniently skipped over in User:ZMcCune (WMF)'s responses. Coffee // have a cup // 22:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, this is very concerning. – Teratix 03:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    I also noticed that and find it worrying and annoying. --Yen Zotto (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    Wow, that's extremely worrying.
    • 9,000 users viewing the page does not mean 9,000 valid survey participants. It might be the same person viewing the page multiple times (e.g. to participate in a discussion on a specific point), it might be a person getting the link through multiple channels but not willing to participate, a patroller seeing this page through Recent Changes, a person willing to participate but being unable due to insufficient knowledge of English etc. Even important 2017 board elections with excellent setup (sitenotice, emails, simple voting page) had less than 10% participation. Even in a case of unanimous rejection the community did not go beyond 1,000 votes (the biggest participation in an on-wiki poll was on Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer and stands at 982 users). Anyone who organised on-wiki discussions knows that getting more than 10% of online community participating is not feasible. Thus reaching 20% opposes is simply impossible, just because we never get 20% participation.
    • 9,000 people receiving an email does not mean 9,000 valid survey participants. Unless you give a simple yes/no survey in the email with a button, very few people will reply to a mailing list. Many of them are subscribed to digests, many of them filter them to a folder they read very rarely etc., thus the majority of these 9,000 probably did not read the email at all. Very few people click on 'reply to all' on a high-traffic mailing list, and in no way you can expect 20% of 9,000 subscribers answering to a mailing list: getting 100 replies to a thread is already an extremely rare event, and that's just 1.1%.
    Even if we consider that 9,000 unique people were indeed involved, but only 144 participated in the discussion, that's a horrible en:Response rate (survey) of just 1.6% (a healthy response rate is between 1/4 and 1/3). Dividing the number of opposes by number of page views is completely wrong from the survey design point of view. Considering these 9,000 people as survey participants (I think they are not), we have 0.6% oppose (57), 0.2% support (20), 0.7% undecided (67) and 98.4% did not answer (everyone else). Statistically this result can only mean a bad survey.
    Thus I think that getting 20% of opposes among all users receiving an email or visiting Meta was impossible by design. Even if the entire community were unanimously opposed to the proposal, we could not have reached more than 12% (1,000 on-wiki comments + 100 mailing list replies). The only way to reach 20% was by using personalised talk page messages, sitenotice, mailing list and village pump invitations AND an online survey (Qualtrics or similar), which was not the solution chosen.
    @ZMcCune (WMF): Could you please provide information on the methodology of this KPI and how it was chosen? I hope that this person had no knowledge of surveys and made a good-faith mistake. If this was done by a person who is an expert in community surveys, unfortunately this means someone has sold corporate marketing bullshit to WMF — NickK (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In our first consultation we were putting the full measure of our outreach into the report. To report on this page we would say “EllenCT started an RFC “Should Wikimedia Foundation call itself Wikipedia” the results were 19 support and 220 oppose to strong oppose (or whatever the numbers are at that time).” --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Selsharbaty (WMF): My question is rather would you say Out of ~9,000 people having viewed the page, only 220 (~2.4%) opposed. Do you find this would be a reasonable summary of this discussion? — NickK (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @NickK: and sorry for the delayed response here. The goal of last year’s community review of the brand strategy was to collect the community feedback, concerns, points of strength and comments but we never looked at it as a voting process. We used metrics and KPIs to make sure that we have reached as many communities/affiliates.--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Selsharbaty (WMF): Thank you for your reply, although it does not really answer my question. What I want to understand is how Less than 20% of informed community oppose KPI was set and measured. Counting mailing list recipients as informed is correct, counting page views as unique informed people is quite wrong, but dividing those stating their opposition by this total sum is completely wrong and not acceptable. I have written above why this KPI is wrong by design, is it clear for you what is wrong with it? — NickK (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Selsharbaty (WMF):: No. That cannot be what you say. The question is "Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?" Don't misrepresent the question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: To clarify, my response here was to Nosebagbear’s question “could we confirm that you're not (or won't be) evaluating …” above. My response was not to the headline question on this page “Should the foundation call itself Wikipedia.”--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I find it incredibly disturbing it is near impossible to get a straight answer about how the original KPIs were designed, from personnel who supposedly "work with the Wikimedia Community members". The "first consultation" (with severe negligence, or deliberate intent) skewed the numbers in a way that made it appear you had more backing for this idea than you did. When you have to come up with a whole new version of measuring survey responses than the clear norm, using bullshit terms like "informed oppose" (while failing to mention how low the "informed supports" were [hint: much lower]), you aren't just being good stewards of outreach. If anything, your metrics appear to have been mostly designed to prevent opposition (going so far as to count neutrals/unvoiced opinions as technical supports).

      I'll ask two questions right now that should absolutely be answered:

    1. Why were mailing lists chosen as the preferred method of contact for the actual community (very few of our community members actively watch those)?
    2. Why consider a proposal to have "strong support" based on the number of opposes; shouldn't support be measured by only the amount of voiced support? Coffee // have a cup // 04:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I second particularly point 1. The various mailing lists out there have virtually no meaning to me as an active community member (mainly in German-language Wikipedia) for many years. I don't read them. All important communication on Wikipedia matters happens in Wikipedia, not in some external lists or platforms. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is the clearest consequence that the massive hiring by the Wikimedia Foundation of staff that cares little about the real values of the movement just leads to manipulation, lack of transparency, antidemocratic practices and separation from the real Wikimedia: the volunteered-driven one. The leadership of the WMF is, as the word that they really like to use for dissidence, "toxic": it is destroying the movement behind the mask of a branding, a strategy 2030 that ignore any real concern and destroy all patience of volunteers to follow-up, and agressive capitalistic, corporative practices. The Wikimedia Foundation must be dissolved and the self-governance returned to the communities. Stop wasting the time and money from volunteers, and stop building astatus quo to make a living from free knowledge. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 20:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Unbelievable! Why dont you think, the "lurker" would vote against - the mayority? And they do not vote, because ist clear enough, they do not speak English enough, they have already voted... --Brainswiffer (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If they use the same metrics her again, the current standing is: Out of 18.804 only 34 supported the name change, that's 0.18% of the participants. That's a severe slap in the face for those who want a name change. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Joint strong opposition to the branding process from the Catalan Wikimedia projects & Amical Wikimedia (WMCAT)Edit

 
In this map, the WMF deliberately mixed several kind of feedbacks from personal opinions, off-wiki working groups and other institutional statements. Above all, the map omitted stateless affiliates and their formal concerns, as the ones transmitted by Amical Wikimedia.
 
Even with the serious discussions about the process, the WMF already unilaterally budgeted additional $700,000 for the branding process with the budget line "Brand Awareness", plus $700,000 more for "marketing".
  • 38 votes against the current, ongoing institutional branding process as it has been outlined until now by the Wikimedia Foundation, on behalf of both Catalan Wikimedia projects and Amical Wikimedia.

Amical Wikimedia submitted for debate in the Catalan Wikipedia (centralised debate for all projects in Catalan) the branding process after several global grievances of transparency, governance and economical planning, and especially after the total omission of Amical Wikimedia's formal concerns in April 2019 (via Meta and institutional e-mail). Besides the lack of reply on behalf of the WMF, Amical Wikimedia board transmitted again its huge concerns in November 2019 jointly with the Chairs of Wikimedia Belgium, Wikimedia Ukraine, Wikimedia Medicine and Wikimedia Poland. Even though the message was forwarded by the Chairs and addressed to the formal reply of RMerkley (WMF), the only response was on behalf of Heather (WMF) and suggesting to participate in Wikimedia-Space and Facebook threads.

This is why, from the Catalan Wikimedia projects and Amical Wikimedia, and without detriment of the natural opinions in favor or against a possible, substantiate change of the name, both communities 1) strongly reject the current rename process of Wikimedia, 2) demand for its immediate termination and its assigned budget for 2020, and 3) call for formal responsibilities from the leaders of the Wikimedia Foundation. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 15:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

After the votation in the Catalan Wikipedia, at least 14 voters explictly stated their support to move their rejections to this discussion.

--Toniher (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail above, @Toniher:, and for the clearcut statement above. To avoid one immediate rebuttal, could you provide/add the support (that's actual support, not the WMF's odd intepretation of such) of the rename from the Catalan discussion, if there was any? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
As written in the statement above, 38 participants in the Catalan Wikipedia consultation rejected the Branding process as it has been performed and demanded it to be stalled and to call for responsibilities (because of abuse of resources, lack of transparency, manipulative cherry-picking, disregard of the potentially affected stakeholders, etc.) 0 participants expressed their support to accept this Branding process in that consultation. Participants of that consultation have been notified to participate in this RfC so they can also express their opinion here and cast their vote if they so desire (some already did). --Toniher (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to closeEdit

Any objections? EllenCT (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Out of curiosity I checked how that is supposed to be handled here, e.g., a "non-admin closure after 30 days of inactivity iff the closure does not require admin rights" (or similar), but found only an unrelated Closure of old RFCs—applied on fun stuff such as Jerks vs dicks—and an anti-Snowball policy. –84.46.52.96 07:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's cool our jets a bit. I understand where you are coming from, but this discussion has been open for less than a month at a venue where RfCs are normally open for months at a time (with two years being considered inactive). There is no urgency to this RfC (as shown by the timeline outlined by WMF Branding above) and anything less than one month is most likely a premature closure. There is no cost to keeping this RfC open longer, and the benefit will mean more community input. ~riley (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A delay on a close also seems counterproductive when we don't have the executive authority - the RfC exists to make a point to the WMF, while it's open it makes a good hub to talk to them. If it's closed then that impetus and locus both decline or disappear. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see the value in closing it. In so far as this kind of RfC affects what the WMF does, it doesn't matter whether the discussion is 'closed' or not - what will have an impact on their decision-making is the strength of feeling, the breadth of perspectives, and the weight of arguments. If more people gradually add their views, all of that increases. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree, that this is some kind of Snowball under normal wikiproject circumstances, and I hope those, who work on this ill-fated project, will stop wasting their time and money on this better sooner then later, but as long as they don't, keep it open. Thre will only come more and more opposes to this proposal with nearly no backing in the movement as can be seen here. If you want an exaple of a rather long running RfC on Meta, look here ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been about 1-to-10 through its history. I want to suggest moving on to specific choices such as the status quo "Wikimedia Foundation," the "Wikipedia Foundation," since many respondents asked about that specific choice, and the potentially viable alternatives like the "Wiki Foundation." EllenCT (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • It is not up to us to decide WMF's name. We've done everything we possibly could've to voice our opinion about the possible Foundation name change from Wikimedia to Wikipedia (as in the name of this RfC). The ball right now is in their court, let's see what they are going to do with it. Here is some sort of a timeline: click. I'd suggest to stop all these rebranding efforts altogether, but who am I to say it? tufor (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    Of course it's for us, the community, to decide, how our service agency, that only exists because of and for us, should be named. They are only a derivative of the community and are definitely not above us. We are their superiors. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I cannot agree more with Sänger's comment. How aren't we going to have the power to decide what the WMF is doing? They exist because of the commitment to free knowldge of thousand of volunteers like us, and they have a work and a salary because people donate appreciate our task and want to preserve us. If we decide the WMF not to be renamed, it must not be renamed. And if we decide to dissolve the WMF because it doesn't represent at all its fundational values anymore, it must disappear as well. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Updates from the FoundationEdit

In reading closely through this RfC, we have realized that there is a good deal of confusion around where we are in this process, what is upcoming, and how community feedback is shaping each step. We recognize that this confusion has resulted in a misunderstanding that a specific naming convention for the Wikimedia Foundation has been decided and is currently up for a vote. Neither of these is the case. We also recognize that we should have done more over the last months to clarify progress and avoid misunderstandings like this. We have now taken steps to do that.

We have ensured that the various updates and resources shared disparately are now centralized on the project page. We have also clarified the timeline for the upcoming months, and added sections to the FAQ. This should make the project outline clearer and provide central links to all resources. The materials and timeline on the project page will continue to be updated.

Please review the updated project page and let us know on the talk page if anything remains unclear. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Both linked pages still clearly state that your team's intention is to redo Wikimedia's branding under Wikipedia's name. Your team's broader proposal was unambiguously rejected with >90% of participants opposing it when it came up last year, with the more specific proposal regarding the WMF being overwhelmingly rejected again here. Please stop this mess. --Yair rand (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 
"A slide showing the changes taking place in the movement brands," dated 26 November 2019, by Zack McCune for the Wikimedia foundation
(editconflict) Hi Zach. When you say it's a misunderstanding that "a specific naming convention for the Wikimedia Foundation has been decided" - what do you mean? I see from the page you linked to that the only point of certainty in the process is that the "movement" will now be called "Wikipedia" not "Wikimedia". That seems to rule out the status quo as an option. Are you saying that there we could end up changing both words in the WMF's name so we end up with the Wikipedia Trust or something? I don't think that would really get a different answer to the one you're getting here. Thanks, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to add a comment here to apologize for the metrics presented in the 2030 research and planning community review results, as I see this is being discussed.

Using the percentage of opposed/in favor over the total number of informed was originally conceived for speaking with affiliates, as a way to allow us to measure both approval and overall reach of direct conversations and in-person meetings. We extended this metric to the individual contributor community.

We realize this particular metric was unconventional and difficult to measure in the context of individual contributors. It also had the negative consequence of detracting from the goal of the consultation, which was to gather qualitative feedback about risks and benefits of a branding change to present in a report to the Board. This has been a learning for us and I want to personally apologize for the distress and confusion that this caused. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

One simple question to Heather (WMF), will the foundation honour the community consensus here (no matter is it for / against) and enact it in the foundation plan for 2030 if closed by an appropriate person. Thanks much. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Heather (WMF): at Comments on the Rebranding Strategy, you wrote,

On legal and reputational risk: We agree with your assessment that this issue is sensitive, important, and in need of further review before changes are adopted. The Wikimedia Foundation Legal team have been closely involved in discussions of rebranding and will continue to vet possible adjustments to naming and marks to assess risk.

Would you please ask the Legal team to publish the results of their review? EllenCT (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Ich schreib's mal auf Deutsch, dann kann ich es besser formulieren.
Mir fehlt noch immer irgendwie der Ansatz, warum ein gut eingeführter Name derart verändert werden soll, dass es nur Verwirrung stiftet. Die Wikipedia ist etwas komplett anderes als Wikimedia, und das sollte auch klar und deutlich bei der Benennung werden. Wikimedia ist eine Dienstleistungsagentur für die verschiedenen Gemeinschaftsprojekte und der Name für das koordinierte Wikiversum, die WMF hat keinerlei Zweck aus sich selbst, sie ist allein zum Dienen für die schreibenden, administrierenden, fotografierenden, Daten sammelnden AutorInnen der verschiedenen Projekte da.
Mit dem unausgegorenen Vermixen des Namens eines einzelnen Projektes mit der Serviceorganisation von ganz vielen Projekten wird nur Verwirrung gestiftet, der deutliche Unterschied zwischen WMF und WP wird unangemessen verwischt. Wofür bleibt undeutlich, schließlich sind wier kein Unternehmen, das Werbung machen muss, sondern eine gemeinnützige Gemeinschaft, die sich selber in Form einer Stiftung eine Servicestruktur gegeben hat.
Die oberste Institution im Wikiversum hat die Gemeinschaft zu sein, Affiliates, due Stiftung selber o.ä. haben höchstens beratenden Charakter. Von der Gemeinschaft bezahlte Personen werden dafür bezahlt, der Gemeinschaft zu dienen, nicht ihr Vorschriften zu machen. Ohhne Konsens der Gemeinschaft kann es keine valuide Entscheidung geben.
Die Einbindung einer Werbeagentur, noch dazu einer, die wegen antiwikipedianischem Auftreten in der enWP gesperrt ist, für ein solches Unterfangen ist sehr fragwürdig. Warum wird Geld für Snödingsda rausgeworfen, und der Eindruck erweckt, die Umbenennung sein quasi schon gelaufen, obwohl nicht mal ein Ansatz eines Konsenses bei den einzig interessierenden Leuten, nämlich der Gemeinschaft der AutorInnen etc. besteht?
Es besteht weder ein Bedarf noch gar eine Entscheidung dazu, dass sich die WMF in WPF umbenennt, im Gegenteil, hier in dem MB wird entsprechend er von den PropagandistInnen dieses Unterfangens selber angestellten Metrik nicht mal 0,2% Zustimmung erreicht. Wie soll sich auf 0,2% Zustimmung irgendwas gründen?
Was hier wieder gesagt wurde, war auch vollkommen am Thema vorbei, es wurde wieder nicht klar und deutlich gesagt, dass die gesamte Umbenennungsaktion nicht mal im Ansatz beschlossene Sache sein kann, sonder gerade erst angefangen wird, mit dem entscheidenden Gremium, der Gemeinschaft, zu diskutieren. Was Leute mit einem (WMF) hinter dem Namen dazu sagen, muss für die Entscheidung völlig irrelevant sein, die sind schließlich nur Diener der Gemeinschaft, nicht deren Chefs. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF) and Heather (WMF): please answer this question clearly: has it been already decided that no matter the outcome of this RfC, no matter how many people here would oppose this idea, you are still going to use "Wikipedia" in Foundations's future name? Please say either: "Yes, we will definitely use Wikipedia in WMF's future name" or "No, there is still a possibility that we will not use Wikipedia in WMF's future name". Just a short statement, yes or no, without any of the usual flowery non-answers. Thanks in advance, tufor (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For members of Communications part of the Cabal, you're the worst communicators I've seen in a very long time. It almost looks like your attempts to explain something to us, editors, are an inconvenience in your daily lives. I understand that you've got your daily corporate targets, meetings, and budgets to spend, but you work the hardest to make WMF look even worse than the usual terrible image. I understand that mine or a few hundreds of people above here are not that important - in the end we bring you ZERO value to the corporation. But well - that's life in SF, isn't it? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Smoke and mirrors - Interesting that the WMF was totally fine making it appear as though a count of those in support (or more accurately, those who didn't voice opposition) was a fine way to present their decision to plow forward with this move (at least while they thought that would fly), but now they are claiming this won't be determined by a vote. All that says to me is this has been decided, and all they are doing is allowing a "comment period" like the Executive Branch (of US govt) does before plowing ahead with something it had already decided on. Essentially, our voices have no bearing on this discussion (other than minor notes about what "conventions" to use after the major change) and they will be replacing the name Wikimedia with Wikipedia. According to ZMcCune, it's just us confusing everything that has caused us to oppose this move too, not just the fact that we (or at least 90% of us) literally oppose the change of Wikimedia to Wikipedia in any context. Why would facts actually matter when you can just make it appear your minority opinion is in the only opinion that matters? If this is the leadership that is to be expected out of the WMF, I'm severely disappointed. Coffee // have a cup // 06:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Heather (WMF): Thank you. I think that the apology for the metrics found in the 2030 research and planning community review results is a good start, and provides the basis for a path out of this community/WMF divide. I'd suggest that the next steps should be to either retract that document or to correct and reissue it with updates that make it clear that individual editors have always been against the use of 'wikipedia' in a new name of the WMF. Given that the board's decision in the name was made with incorrect information, it seems like the presence of correct information would allow the board to revisit their position.
I'll toss out there that while I think that using "Wikipedia" in the name of the foundation is confusing, it might make sense to consider other ways tie the WMF to Wikipedia. For example, calling the foundation something like the "Wiki Projects Foundation", and then using a logo that includes a WP that matches the Wikipedia logo. But that's an aside - I think right now, what's important is to correct or retract the report, and then have the board revisit the naming scheme in light of continual community opposition that wasn't made clear.
Finally, I hope that the community treats this apology as the positive step it is. TomDotGov (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)