Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project

Active discussions
This page is for discussions related to the Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project page.

  Please remember to:


  Archives: 1 2 3

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg


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

Links to discussions in the projectsEdit

Community feedback and straw pollEdit

Community discussions on brandingEdit

Polls and RfCs (as of 00:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Straw Poll Agree Disagree Other Agree %
(Q1) Include the status quo 227 1 2 99%
(Q2) Name of the Foundation 5 204 3 2%
(Q3) Name of the Movement 8 181 8 4%
RfC Support Oppose Other Support %
Wikimedia should use Wikipedia as name 46 534 4 8%
Other as of 00:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Open letter (more stats) Affiliates Non-Affiliates Community members Total entities
Pause or stop renaming 72 5 956 1033


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)
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)

Warning about misleading slides.Edit

I added a warning about the slides the foundation's Brand Project Team presented to the Board being misleading. A few of the more obvious ways:

  • There are no statistics about pageviews or editor retention from after 2015.
  • The board comments on Page 37 are cherry-picked.
  • The map on Page 57 is misleading, as it highlights counties like Canada, Russian, Brazil, Australia, and China that didn't actually share any feedback.
  • Page 82 reads like a Snohetta ad. It's not clear that experience with Architecture translates to branding, and it's pretty clear that now that we've seen what Snohetta did, it's nothing like the "wiki" way.
  • Page 91 is really bad:
    • Unlike the RfC where the participants evaluated their own responses, there's no indication what the 705 participants think about branding.
    • 1,300 visits and 1,200 endorsements are meaningless numbers when compared to people.
    • Both of these are repeats of the mistake Heather apologized for, which was confusing participation in a process with endorsement.
    • This is especially true when juxtaposing them with the RfC.

These are just some of the ways in which these slides are misleading. I'm not sure what the right thing to do about this is, other than to warn readers, and potentially present a corrected version next to the version presented to the Board. TomDotGov (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with many of these points (that "1200 endorsements" bit is exceptionally problematic), but I think the warning can't be limited to just saying it's misleading without any further explanation. A link to the talk page would make sense, I think, along with more expansive wording. (Presentations like these are getting more and more common from the WMF in general, and it's clear that many no longer feel any compunctions against creating deliberately biased or disingenuous reports. I'm starting to think that we need a standard system for labelling such WMF statements.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
To clarify why the "1200 endorsements" metric is problematic: If a user wished to express opposition to the selected branding concept by pressing endorse for 15 opposing options, that would be considered 15 endorsements. --Yair rand (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I've linked this discussion, and I'd be happy with any wording that makes the problem clear. I just think it's better to get the warning that the slides are misleading up as soon as possible. TomDotGov (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel its hard to judge a presentation with just the slides. So much depends on the context that the speaker puts the individual slide into. I too don't think its really an accurate representation of the oppose side. However its kind of unfair to expect anyone to unilaterally come up with a fair assesment of someone they disagree with (perhaps this still is the fault of brand team for accepting the task of unilaterally summarizing the debate instead of somehow collaborating with the opposition to come up with something both sides think is fair). I'm willing to give some benefit of the doubt here that brand team at least tried to summarize the opposition, even if they didn't quite "get it". Bawolff (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that the slides were posted to the wiki without further context, like speakers notes - and so the potential to mislead exists. It's not like it wasn't clear from the time this presentation was first conceived that it would be posted publicly.
I'll use the map on Page 57 as an example - it has the problem that it geographically weights countries, as if a country with more landmass is more important than a smaller country. It also colors countries where some affiliate responded blue, just like countries where no affiliate responded. That image was once all over the place, but it's been taken down for being misleading - but now it's back up.
Page 65. Heather Walls apologized for that on February 17th. It took almost a month (to March 14th) to get that misleading information corrected - and it took me editing the report to get it fixed.
Maybe context changes things, but neither the community the board asked to review these slides nor the members of future boards of directors will have been given that context. TomDotGov (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh i definitely don't disagree there are issues. The not-to-scale graph on page 90 in particular annoys me, all the more so because its so minor, why wouldnt they just make it to scale, especially in the current political context? Comes across all the more tone deaf because of how small it is. I also can't help but feel in the various slides about "mistakes" that they fail to understand why it was a mistake and are mostly sorry they got caught. Bawolff (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The tuning session slides may also be of interest File:Wikimedia_Foundation_fourth_quarter_2019-2020_tuning_session_-_Communications.pdf. Basically the same as the slides for the board, but there's some interesting nuggets. On the bright side they do acknowledge the possibility of the branding project being halted and note the calls for restorative process from affiliates. On the downside they only express concern about dissent from affiliates and the overall thrust is still "what can we do to get this through?". If you want some dark humour, there's also graphic on slide 21 that I think unintentionally summarises the community's feelings about certain WMF consultations. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Any answers by those, who made this again substandard presentation? Or do they only wait for it to be archived? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

August updateEdit

This is mentioned above, but I wanted to put this information in its own section for reference. The Board moved the August meeting to instead be a series of meetings at the end of September, so this is when they will make a determination on next steps regarding this project. The project timeline is now updated to reflect that. The raw survey data (from 63 affiliate surveys, 1080 individual surveys and 8 Foundation department surveys) will be anonymized for individuals and published along with the report following the September meetings. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

After, so that the community doesn't have any insight before and can correct any misconceptions, that were quite normal up to now with stuff presented by the renaming group. The board will get only your reading of it and won't be disturbed by any dissent from the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Why do you keep the results secret until after you presented them to the board? To put it bluntly: I have no trust in the renaming group to be honest and impartial in this regard, they have proven to be very biased in all their statements and treated dissent with comntempt. Why should I suddenly believe, that this already extermely biased survey will not be presented in a completely distorted way, like they did with all other community dissent up to now? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
If the Foundation's Brand Project Team is serious about restorative practices, one way to do that would be to begin to collaborate with the community. One of the big flaws with the process so far was the 'big bang' approach to announcements - releasing the naming conventions all at once, only to find out that there was no community support; releasing the board meeting slides, only to find out they were misleading. An important restorative practice would be to gain community support for the analysis before the September meetings, rather than having the board make a decision on an analysis that the community realizes afterwards is flawed. TomDotGov (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


Naming feedback survey data release timingEdit

I was asked when naming feedback survey results would be released during the Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meetings this weekend so I wanted to document those answers here as well. The project team will release all survey data (anonymized) and a report on the survey results following Board review. This Board review was originally scheduled for August 5, and has since been rescheduled for September 24. The process is to review these materials with the Board of Trustees first, and shifts in Board meeting timing does not shift this review order.

The naming feedback survey data is also not a vote, as the acting Board chair confirmed on June 26, so this report is not going to result in a selected naming approach. Instead, the feedback provides constructive criticism on what naming elements to "remove, refine, and recombine" as explained in the naming phase home page. That's what folks can expect in the report's recommendations. Cheers! And thanks to all who joined the SWAN meeting with questions and ideas. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why should we trust you, that you will present a valid survey result, and not something along the fake numbers you used to promote your renaming in the KPI-fiasco? You give your probably biased results of this completely biased "survey" to the board first, so that the critical eye of the community has no chance to point out any errors. It's very telling, that you disregard the community again and only talk with some functionaries of the WMF instead of the sovereign, the community, first. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@ZMcCune (WMF): This is a process that almost everyone considers to be faulty. Given that two of the things going wrong with this process are, "There is a general lack of trust in the Foundation" and "Our 'non typical' process was seen as less legitimate.", the process itself needs to be revisited. There is nothing in the statement from the acting board chair that prevents the Foundation from disclosing the survey contents for community for review before the September meeting.
One of the biggest problems with the way this project has been run so far has been commitment to a process that has been predictably failing. When small groups of people told you the process would fail, it wasn't changed. When the RfC told you it was failing, the process wasn't changed. When an open letter from the community told you the process was failing, the process wasn't changed. It's not like the process can't be changed - it can and has been, on multiple occasions. It's just that none of these changes have addressed the community's concerns, especially with the way that the project has misled the board and the community.
The board was misled at least twice, so far - by a faulty analysis of the survey data, and then by a set of misleading slides. Now you're sticking with a process that will lead to the Brand Project Team having the opportunity to present misleading information to the board again, after which that information will be reviewed by the community. That doesn't improve trust in the Foundation or add legitimacy. The process needs to be changed again. TomDotGov (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


@ZMcCune (WMF): the only valid and acceptable answer to "on what naming elements to remove, refine, and recombine" is that the "Wikipedia" element must be removed. I hope that the branding team does not intend to advance any contrary answer. Any contrary answer could only be a result of:
  • malice or incompetence in designing the survey to make it difficult-or-impossible to answer the survey in that manner; and/or
  • malice or incompetence in summarizing to avoid admitting that result.
Unfortunately, the Foundation has a historical pattern of severely biased surveys&summaries reaching a desired (and fraudulent) result. To cite one example, the Flow Survey claimed that there was almost as much support for Flow as opposition against Flow, and issued a recommendation to continue development and to pursue expanded deployment. In reality opposition to Flow was more like 90%. The ultimate outcome should be noted. In direct response to the fraudulent survey results I organized community consensus to successfully terminate any further development or deployment. (As you can see noted in the information-box at the top of the survey page.)
If the branding team misleads the Board into supporting this fiasco, it will only result in the community (again) firing and replacing the Board and rolling back that decision, as the community did to overrule the Board's malfeasance in the Superprotect incident. Alsee (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project" page.