Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project
This page is for discussions related to the Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project page.
Please remember to:
A space to discuss the 2030 movement brand project. Add new topics below.
Links to discussions in the projectsEdit
- deWP: Umbenennung auf der Kurierdiskussionsseite.
- enWP: Branding event in the Village Pump
- esWP: Carta abierta en relación al proceso de cambio de denominación (rebranding) de la Fundación Wikimedia en el café
- frWP: Projet de renommage in the Bistro
- fiWP: Wikimedia-liikkeen Wikipediaksi nimeämisen -palautekysely 7.7.2020 saakka in Kahvihuone (Village Pump)
- itWP Sondaggio di Wikimedia Foundation sui nomi collettivi del futuro in il bar di Wikipedia
- nlWP: Enquête over voorstellen nieuwe namen Wikimedia Foundation in De kroeg.
- ptWP: Mudança do nome da Fundação Wikimedia para Fundação Wikipédia (20jun2020) na Esplanada.
- Wiktionarians: Tremendous Wiktionary User Group talk page
- Commons: WMF rebranding on the Village Pump
- faWP: تغییر نام ویکیمدیا در قهوهخانه
- Wikidata: Rebrand of the Wikimedia Foundation in the archive of the project chat
Community feedback and straw pollEdit
- English: The Community feedback and straw poll was moved to a dedicated sub-page: Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Community feedback and straw poll
- Deutsch: Der Community feedback and straw poll wurde auf eine eigene Unterseite verschoben: Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Community feedback and straw poll
Community discussions on brandingEdit
|Polls and RfCs as of 17:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)|
|Straw Poll||Agree||Disagree||Other||Agree %|
|(Q1) Include the status quo||228||1||2||99%|
|(Q2) Name of the Foundation||5||206||3||2%|
|(Q3) Name of the Movement||8||182||8||4%|
|Wikimedia should use Wikipedia as name||46||540||4||8%|
|Other as of 20:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)|
|Open letter (more stats)||Affiliates||Non-Affiliates||Community members||Total entities|
|Pause or stop renaming||73||5||994||1072|
Straw Poll Meta-CommentsEdit
Would anyone be opposed to moving this poll to a transcluded sub-page? We're getting a lot of diversity of people, and that might make it harder to follow longer-form discussion on this talk page. TomDotGov (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @TomDotGov: I'm agreed. This was good as first start, but separate page will be better. --Kaganer (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- +1, seems to be a good idea. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I was successful: Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community feedback and straw poll (with a redirect from Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community feedback and straw poll. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Selsharbaty (WMF): The closure of the RfC and the introduction of the seventh criteria for good movement branding is one of the few bits of positive progress that has happened on the movement brand project, during the period in which the Foundation's contributions were suspended. Please avoid trying to roll back that progress without gaining consensus for your changes. With respect to the 2019 community consultation, it became clear over 2020 that it was massively misinterpreted, and at this point it shouldn't be used for anything decisional.
This process hasn't made a ton of progress, and the introduction of the seventh criteria is one of the rare high points in which a fair process was conducted, and consensus was achieved. Let's not go backwards from that. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 14:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was as well thinking of opening a new section for that. Up to now the branding team has avoided to make a clear statement, that it will really stick to the community consensus and never ever use the name Wikipedia for the foundation. The report by the branding team was anything but convincing, that they git the message by the community. And this deletion of the clear outcome in this section, that doesn't have any specific date in it, that would render it historic and outdated, but appears to be something still valid, shows for me as well the contempt towards the community will by the branding team. This here is Meta, the pages by the community of the whole wikiverse, by no means these are the pages of just one group of WMFers. So please try to reach a consensus here on this pages for your deletion. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're not wrong here. Though I will point out, as much for User:Selsharbaty (WMF)'s benefit as yours, that even if we were to ignore everything that happened after the 2019 report, the corrected version of that report shows a nearly 3:1 consensus against the use of Wikipedia in branding. The RfC wasn't an easy way to progress this project, but I think to revert to branding criteria derived from the erroneous version of the report is a non-starter. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Update from the Ad hoc Brand CommitteeEdit
Hello all, as you may recall, the Board of Trustees decided to pause the Brand project till March and has created an Ad hoc Brand Committee that was tasked with preparation for the 'unpause moment'. The Committee started its work by setting up goals and have decided that in order to efficiently prepare for the 'unpause moment', it would helpful to have input from the community throughout that internal process. Therefore a call for Community Advisors was sent at the end of November, with a deadline at the end of Jan 2021, requesting advisors from 4 categories of representation: 2 from Affiliates, 2 who participated in writing the COLOR letter, 2 (or more) from emerging communities / less represented communities, and 1 from AffCom.
All categories sent representatives (with one exception, the India Community). All representatives were added to the Committee on the first week of Feb and they are:
- Lucy Crompton-Reid - from the UK, chosen by Affiliates' EDs group
- Megan Wacha - from the USA, chosen by the Affiliates Chairs group
- Richard Knipel - from the USA, representing those who participated in writing the COLOR letter
- Phoebe Ayers - from the USA, representing those who participated in writing the COLOR letter
- João Alexandre Peschanski - From Brazil, chosen by the Brazilian community
- Justice Okai-Allotey - from Ghana, chosen by the Wiki Indaba group
- Rachmat Wahidi - from Indonesia, chosen by the ESEAP group
- Erlan Vega Rios - from Bolivia, chosen by the Iberocoop group
- Jeffrey Keefer - from the USA, representing AffCom
The Community Advisors joined the Committee for 2 online sessions on Feb 8th & Feb 15th, and advised the Committee on making a clear case for Brand changes, as well as on the future process (at the 'unpause moment') and next steps. The Committee has taken into account the rich conversations that took place and will present its recommendations to the full Board in the coming week, during the Feb 23-25 Board meetings. An update on the full Board's decision will follow, including next steps. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Shani (WMF): A minor correction here - it's the Foundation's contribution to the Brand Project that's been 'unpaused'. The community has accomplished quite a bit while the Foundation's contributions were stopped, like closing the RfC and updating the project to take it the result into account. I hope that when the Foundation resumes public participation, it respects what the community has done. Otherwise, we're going to get right back into the cycle of failure, and that isn't a productive use of anyone's time. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 00:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a bit of an edit war between some from the branding team, who want to water down the absolute clear rejection of the use of Wikipedia for anything but Wikipedia, and the community, i.e. the bosses of this whole enterprise here. Unless the branding team can reach a consensus for any change on the other side, they must not edit anything against the community. They are not the bosses here, but servants. The current version is as far as possible bended towards there bias, more would be a sever distortion of the reality. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could add something like "though not adopted [recognized?] by the WMF Brand team", if the team would consider that an accurate reflection of their position? --Yair rand (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- The point of the principles/criteria is to provide ways of evaluating proposed branding. I don't see how the project could move forwards if the Foundation isn't respecting the outcome of the RfC. I think it's probably better to have the debate over the 7th principle after the Foundation resumes participation (if that isn't already happening), and have the debate on the merits. "This criteria exists, but the Foundation isn't respecting it" seems like an unstable and unproductive outcome - the Foundation would be evaluating potential brands under one set of rules, the community another, and we'd get unacceptable proposals like "Wikipedia Foundation" again.
- I don't think the RfC's outcome has to be a criteria, but I think that the community will treat it like one regardless, and so it's better to just make it one to keep everyone on the same page. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 14:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)