Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project

Add discussion
Active discussions


A space to discuss the 2030 movement brand project. Add new topics below.

2021 Board of Trustees UpdateEdit

Please add your questions and comments here regarding the 2021 Board of Trustees resolution on new branding work by the Wikimedia Foundation.

  • Was will uns das in Bezug auf die eindeutige und unmissverständliche Absage der Community an das Vorhaben des Brand-Teams, den Namen Wikipedia für das gesamte Wikiversum zu usurpieren, sagen? Ist dieses irregeleitete Vorhaben jetzt endlich endgültig begraben, oder wird wieder nur auf Zeit gespielt? Eine klare Absage an dieses Unterfangen kann ich in der Resolution nämlich nicht sehen, und genau diese wäre seit Jahren mehr als überfällig. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The resolution extends the pause on any renaming efforts for the Wikimedia Foundation until at least July 2022, and states that if this project is to be re-opened, it would require new participatory and deliberative processes with the community in order to proceed. (Apologies for responding in English - I do not speak German). --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      In other words: The WMF still doesn't recognise, that it's branding enterprise was a complete failure, and the solid rejection of this futile enterprise by the community still doesn't get heard, because some persons want to stick with their personal preferences against the Wikiverse. Why is there no clear and unambiguous statement, that the community will will be followed and the renaming after one single project is completely off the table for the holding foundation of the many projects? Still just weaselling and avoiding of clear words, just nearly contentless business bullshit bingo. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • These resolutions follow the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on Brand. The Committee found it important to explicitly suspend renaming of the Wikimedia Foundation and require new community consultations if renaming is ever considered again. The ad hoc Committee on Brand also determined that permanently banning Foundation name changes would not reflect that the world and the Foundation strategic positioning is itself subject to change.
The emphasis to take from the resolution on renaming is that it will require new community discussions before any changes would be seriously considered. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF) It's very important that any future rebranding efforts have active community support, not just community consultation. The project names are owned by the community, regardless of what it says on paper - and that is something that overrides board resolutions, like the one from May 2020. It's really important to understand that the community is what gives the movement value, and so any changes need to be ones the community actively supports.
I think it would be possible to come up with something the community could actively support, like "Wikiverse/Wikiversum", something like that. "Wikimedia Foundation" is still a bad name, it's just that "Wikipedia Foundation" was a far worse one.
I've asked a few times, but not really gotten an answer - should we mark this project as historical? Apart from the guidelines for movement branding, I don't see a ton salvageable here, and so it's probably best to start making pages as obsolete. TomDotGov (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@TomDotGov Indeed. Future community consultations would likely include measuring support.
And YES, these "Movement Brand Project" pages can be marked as historical. The resolutions indicate new directions from shared brand development and stewardship. - ZMcCune (WMF) 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Links to discussions in the projectsEdit

Community feedback and straw pollEdit

Community discussions on brandingEdit

Polls and RfCs as of May 21 (UTC)
Straw Poll Agree Disagree Other Agree %
(Q1) Include the status quo 229 1 2 99%
(Q2) Name of the Foundation 5 207 3 2%
(Q3) Name of the Movement 8 183 8 4%
RfC (closed) Support Oppose Other Support %
Wikimedia should use Wikipedia as name 46 540 4 8%
Other as of 22:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Open letter (more stats) Affiliates Non-Affiliates Community members Total entities
Pause or stop renaming 73 5 1005 1083


Straw Poll Meta-CommentsEdit

Extended content
Can I suggest this not be done, or not be done here and now and on this page? There are a lot of balls in the air today, and if we're going to have an RfC-like discussion, it might make sense to wait a bit and see if we and get some buy-in from the Foundation contributors to this project. TomDotGov (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
They have started this premature sham survey, what do you expect from them? I can't see any glimmer of understanding in any of their answers, they live in a parallel universe, that's disconnected from the Wikimedia community and really don't seem to want to change this. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
So far, today, I haven't seen anyone outside the WMF that supports the WMF's proposals. As far as I can tell, nobody outside the WMF has supported them on-wiki in over a month. So who are we trying to convince? I'd rather give the WMF some time to process this, and then I hope we can begin working together to see if a name better than Wikimedia is possible. TomDotGov (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but as we know from the history of this, they falsified surveys to fit their purpose before, and I don't trust them the tiniest bit, that the current "survey" will not be abused by the renamers with falsified "outcomes", to push for their agenda. I really don't know why, what is the secret behind their reckless renaming enterprise, but nothing in the open up to now makes any sense here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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)
You have my blessing. :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Tried to do it, but it triggered a rule about too many Emoji. It looks like we'll need an admin to do it for us. TomDotGov (talk) 17:07, 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)

Historical?Edit

Is there any update about the Foundation resuming participation? Or should the community take the initiative in marking this as a failed project? There hasn't been any progress for the past year or so, other than the RfC close and the introduction of the 7th point. Apart from the Principles of Good Movement Branding, it doesn't seem like there's a lot to be salvaged here, and so it might be better to simply mark this as historical, rather than having it float around in limbo. TomDotGov (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Update on Branding next stepsEdit

Hello all, The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has passed a new resolution on the topic of branding.

Some contextEdit

As you may remember, last year the Board paused all work under the 2030 Movement Brand Project, in order to rethink and improve the Foundation’s approach to community participation and decision making around renaming. After year-long work, attentive listening and thoughtful conversation between the Board, Wikimedia Foundation staff, and community advisors, the committee has come up with a recommendation for next steps. The recommendation was unanimously approved by the Board and captured in the above mentioned resolution. The Wikimedia Foundation will therefore be resuming its role to steward and protect Wikimedia brands, in partnership with our broader movement, and the ad hoc Brand Committee concludes its work .

What are the main aspects of the resolution?Edit

Importantly, this resolution extends the Board’s decision that the Wikimedia Foundation should not pursue renaming work for this fiscal year (until at least July 2022). Instead, it directs the Foundation to support the Wikimedia movement through three main areas of brand work that protect and support Wikimedia’s reputation throughout the world. Please read more about this decision on the Diff Blog.

Next steps?Edit

Wikimedia Foundation teams intend to share more information on new projects, including their plans for engaging our community, in the coming weeks. In the meantime, Foundation staff and I are available to answer clarifying questions in this thread. You are also welcome to join the Board’s Open Meeting on October 20th, where you will be able to ask questions and hear from the team directly.

Special thanksEdit

On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank the community advisors to the Brand Committee. This group has worked with us since February 2021, lending their time and expertise. Their input to the process has been invaluable and we appreciate their commitment to help us find a productive way forward. Thank you -- Lucy Crompton-Reid, Joao Alexandre Peschanski, Megan Wacha, Justice Okai-Allotey, Rachmat Wahidi, Erlan Vega Rios, Richard Knipel, Phoebe Ayers and Jeffrey Keefer!

I would also like to thank our Brand Studio team at the Wikimedia Foundation for their hard work, dedication, professionalism, flexibility, openness, and vision they brought to our joint work on the future of branding. Together, we made sure that the next steps for brand work are closely connected to our 2030 strategic goals and we have no doubt they will be an important service to the Wikimedia movement. I look forward to watching these plans come to life and invite the community to actively participate in these discussions and decisions as they unfold.

Sincerely, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, on behalf of the ad hoc Brand Committee. Shani (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments, Question & AnswersEdit

Please insert any comments or questions you may have about the Brand resolution below. Thank you!

About SnohettaEdit

Hello! We spent a couple of millions working with Snohetta in the redesign of Wikipedia Movement's (sic) visual identity. Has there been any assessment of this expenditure and its consequences? Thanks. -Theklan (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Good question, they never seemed to have any clue about what they were supposed to do with the movement, at least they never bothered to care about us. I can't imagine a worse setup, it was doomed from the beginning without proper community integration, only done as a top-down thing from detached people, (detached means no clue about the Wikiverse, the real Wikiverse, not the xyz_(WMF) ivory tower). They never had any connection with the Wikiverse at all. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Paused or Ended?Edit

Is the 2030 movement brand project paused or ended? Communications on this have been a bit confusing. According to the resolution that captures the Brand Committee's secret deliberations, "any considerations around name changes will involve a new participatory and deliberative process with the community." To me, that says that this current project is basically over, and a new project will be started in the middle of next year. However, the post on the diff talks about "remaining paused".

It's a good idea to have a formal end to the current incarnation of the movement brand project, marking it as historical. While there are a few things (such as the seven guidelines for good movement branding) that might make sense to move to a new project, most of the pages under this namespace are now obsolete (the FAQ and Timeline, the widely-rejected naming convention proposals, the off-wiki Brand Network, and so on.) Many of the reports have misleading content, and it doesn't look likely there will be effort to fix them. A new project seems like a good way to restart without having to deal with previous mistakes. TomDotGov (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Bumping this thread, as the questions and comments are still relevant. Some sort of response from a WMF employee would be ideal, but if anyone knows what's going on, please, speak up. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This may be useful where it seems we have the go ahead to mark this project now as "historical": Talk:Community_open_letter_on_renaming#Marking_"2030_movement_brand_project"_as_historical. - Fuzheado (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
As noted above in Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#2021_Board_of_Trustees_Update, the "Movement Brand Project" may be marked as historical. It will not be continued. The Board's 2021 resolutions indicate new directions for shared brand development and stewardship - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit

The blog post mentions "exploring the idea of creating a sound logo to improve attribution of Wikimedia content on audio devices" among the Brand Studio team's next steps, and according to the resolution this will happen "through a globally inclusive process that will promote movement-wide participation and be open to the public." Is there already a public page where one could start following and deliberating that project?

Relatedly, I just happened to see that a Wikipedian (who is also a professional musician, keyboardist of the Counting Crows and Oscar nominee as co-composer of the Shrek 2 opening song) composed and recorded a "Wikipedia theme" a while ago:

  "The Wikipedia theme, in the style of a five second commercial television cue."
(help | download | file info)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is really cool, thank you for the reminder, HaeB! --Gnom (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@HaeB (talk) not yet, but we should have something up in the next couple of weeks and I can link it here. Thanks for your interest! --KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi HaeB,

Below is the copy I'm posting in appropriate forums and talk pages.

The Wikimedia sound logo project is in an early development phase -- this stage is for asking all kinds of questions, developing and fielding ideas, finding themes and shaping the direction of the project. Here is a link to the meta page for the project:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Sound_Logo

Your input is welcome. Thank you, VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A book that can follow up on the rebranding impasseEdit

As Wikimedia will remain at least historically the name of our movement and the foundation that supports it. The idea came to me to produce a wikibook based on the first three chapters of my PhD thesis about the movement.

The title of this book is: Le mouvement Wikimédia - Derrière la planète Wikipédia se cache toute une galaxie !

And it can be read now in all languages thanks to google translate : https://fr-wikibooks-org.translate.goog/wiki/Le_mouvement_Wikim%C3%A9dia?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=nui

The publication of this book in paper format is discussing in the French-speaking world. And I wonder if it would not be interesting to think about producing similar books in other languages based on a translation and a cultural contextualization of what I have already written. I would like to know what User:Shani (WMF) and other people concerned with the subject think?

Cheers ! Lionel Scheepmans Contact (Fr-N, En-3, Pt-3) 21:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

An other idea to follow up on the rebranding impasseEdit

To promote the movement along with all its projects, I also think that we could mobilize the idea of a pedagogical office, just as Microsoft developed its own office suite. Under the single Wikimedia label, one would then group together, not processing software of text, spreadsheet, graphic, presentation, etc. but all the Wikimedia projects. The term Wikimedia would then become the brand name of the Wikimedia Foundation, which supports the development of the educational suite named Wikimedia. The word Wikimedia would then become the new product name that the foundation and the rest of the movement could promote. The domain name https://www.wikimedia.org/ already exists and would be the ideal web page location to start this project of the pedagogical office Wikimedia. What do you think about it? Lionel Scheepmans Contact (Fr-N, En-3, Pt-3) 21:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Return to "Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project" page.