Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming convention proposals

How will you respect the community with the proposals?

How many of the proposals will respect the community, i.e. don't have anything with WikiPedia in it? I think one of the three would be OK to save the faces of those, who promoted this so heavily, but anything more would be a clear sign to the community, that their opinion doesn't bother anyone in the small group of functionaries, that push this rebranding. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Community RFC

Excuse me, there was an RFC that clearly says that the community doesn't want Wikipedia in WMF name. How do you plan to respect that if these proposals involves ONLY Wikipedia in WMF name?--Ferdi2005_[Mail] 16:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

All the proposals are the same

There is no discussion if the three proposals are the same. This is not serious. -Theklan (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Even a different option still moves to "Wikipedia Foundation"

Hello,

I'm somewhat confused, indeed, staggeringly confused, why you offer three slightly differing options that all still have the "Wikipedia Foundation". Even option 3, the most different, still offers the Wikipedia Foundation.

Given the firm community disagreement, the idea of having an unmovable option seems wilfully obtuse.

Both within the WMF, and also within the broader project, there are a number of data scientists. Could you confirm if they were queried about the correct way of running a quantified data study? At best the current survey can tell you the relative approval or disapproval between the options. But for you to be able to give an absolute report, you need to offer the status quo as an option. Otherwise to state any as a desired option is, at best, misleading, and at worse, a deceptive false trichotomy.

@CKoerner (WMF):, @GVarnum-WMF:, @Trizek (WMF):, @ELappen (WMF):, in brief, could you each answer the following questions:

1. Given a major community desire for it, and the inability to offer any absolute viewpoints without it, why was the status quo not offered as an option?
2. Do you have concerns that offering branding variants where there are non-moving changes (that is, ones which apply in all three) are in no way true variants?
3. Why does the survey end (asking emails) not guarantee to keep emails distinct from all other survey answers?
4. When will you close and move the survey to, in order to adapt it for the community-consensus-demanded option changes?

Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, why was the status quo not offered as an option? That something needs to change is taken as fact, while no such thing has been shown. Marketing is evil, let it not soil our wonderful movement. Zanaq (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: The goal of the project is to develop a brand (name + design) that addresses the issues that the research has identified with Wikimedia. So, the scope of the survey is to evaluate and improve alternatives specifically. However, if you still feel that Wikimedia is the best option in light of the research, you are free to put it in the open recommendation field on the survey. We will be reporting on this open section.

The team did a lot of work exploring other variants. There was a lot put on the table, and sometimes the limitations were greater than the team thought they would be. Many of the options came from community suggestions. Some options were W, Free Knowledge and Wiki (plus Wiki compound terms), but there were more suggested as well. Of the many options reviewed, three advanced to in-depth legal review.

The privacy statement outlines that only those who need to see information to perform their work will see this data. Of course, removing it is part of the anonymization process that will happen before anything is published. If you don’t feel comfortable inputting your email address, just keep an eye on the project pages (or even just the main project page, where all opportunities go in “News”) for updates. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): Thanks for your answer. If I understand it well, leaving "Wikimedia" is already decided, and the only way to oppose this whole "Wikipedia branding" thing is to fill the open fields? Will you state you do have community support if this non-option — which requires a lot more effort than just clicking on the 3 proposed ones — has received no majority? Turb (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Turb: Hi there, just a note that this survey is not a vote, it's part of a design process. The feedback will be used to refine alternatives, not select a winner that will be implemented. Survey data will be publicly available for review and the report will summarize the findings in a clear way. The Board's recent update is helpful in providing clarity around what has been decided and what has not: for now, they have decided to continue with the project and the feedback process. In August, they plan to review survey results and other discussions and make a determination. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. The community is solidly against this renaming process by a small group of renaming enthusiasts. The executive statement by this very small group of enthusiasts says, it is already decided to rename it. They even declared, the board gave them carte blanche for this. I hope, the board will reign in in this unwanted renaming enterprise by this very small group. I still hope, the community will be heard at last, and not be discarded, like it's done by this group up to now. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: Please reword your post. Posting "Blah blah blah" is not conducive to productive discussion. --Yair rand (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It is very difficult to elevate any conversation with comments like this one. It is very difficult to continue responding as if nothing happens. Sänger, I have left a longer comment in your Talk page. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you expect? Three nearly identical proposals, and a "refinement" of these identical proposals will be the choice. That's no choice at all, all is just the same, and those, who present this three non-choices and ignore the community completely have the gall to write some of this corporate speak nonsense here as an answer? That's really something opposite of Meta:Civility, e if not a single word might say so for itself, the whole gist is: I don't care about it, we do whatever we want, you have no real say in this. And the disguising of that basic meaning with contentless corporate lingo is anything but civil, it's aggressive non-listening. At least this complete neglect of any community input is felt by those ignored by the very small group, that pushes this renaming against the movement. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The survey was planned as a vote by the very small group of renaming enthusiasts, and now, as they finally realise, they won't get far with that proposals, they are trying to rationalise their defeat somehow. I really don't know, how they got the impression, the renaming in their reading would get any traction within the community, but somehow they must have been convinced, they are doing a good work, and a wanted work. That's what I really grant them, even if I personally don't have the faintest idea, how this misreading of the community has evolved. But instead of just stating: Sorry, we misunderstood you, we won't go on with this unwanted enterprise they are still rationalising it. The survey in itself is completely useless, as it's biased beyond any usefulness. Why they go on using this useless piece of junk is beyond my comprehension. But, a huge BUT, they have used fake numbers in the past to push their private yearning with the rubbish KPI, so I have little trust in them, as long as they stick to the fairy tale, this "survey" has any merit whatsoever. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): thanks, your message and the one from the board make things clearer, although still both carry a lot of ambiguity. Nothing is said to be decided, but it is stated the process still carries on, to its natural outcome ("Wikipedia Foundation") which is aligned with the wishes of those who "can" (legally I presume) execute it. Turb (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

multiple votes?

The RfC was a transparent, open possibility to find how the community thinks about the idea of renaming. The current survey is an intransparent method, with a biased introduction text, limiting the answers to options which have already been refused by the community. By the way: How will you prevent users from filling out the survey several times? --Niki.L (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Qualtrics @Niki.L:(or any other survey system) allows us to ask questions and receive structured answers with more detail and possibilities to analyze than the usual RfC model allows. The raw data will be published after being anonymized, so that anyone can look at the data and interpret it if they wish. Private surveys also have very different individual and group dynamics than open RfCs. Submitting feedback privately without knowing what is the feedback submitted by the others is a very different individual experience than submitting an opinion in public with opinions published and ongoing trends in play. For a topic as emotional as this, we believe that giving the opportunity to express oneself privately is important.

Qualtrics has basic preventative measures against ballot stuffing. And to be clear the outcomes of the survey will be used to remove, refine and recombine elements from different proposals into a single proposal. It is not being used as a way to vote on a winner between candidates but rather provide helpful feedback so we can create a single proposal that uses and refines the strongest elements from each proposal. Therefore, even if someone tries to game the system, we don't believe the impact will be big enough to distort conclusions on what to remove, refine and recombine.--EZar (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sick of hearing lame excuses and false promises. Feel free to openly say that WMF is spitting on volunteers who have been creating wikipedia's content, and that WMF will name the project regardless what the volunteers are thinking about WMF's idea of capturing "their" reputable project's name. Such honesty would be much more bearable for me than WMF's marketing verbiage.--Niki.L (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Niki.L, the executive statement clarifies that the intention has been to rename the project regardless of community input, and that not making this clear until now was a communication problem. Vermont (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the community

The community has shown a clear opinion on this: why is it being ignored? The problem is not a problem, this does not mean what it means, and the solution has little support in the community. Zanaq (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternative: Wikis for Knowledge

I will repeat my suggestion that I presented in the survey. My proposal is :

Movement	Wikis for Knowledge
Movement tagline	Part of the Wikis for Knowledge Network/Movement
User groups	Wikis for Knowledge Group Penguins/Wiki Group Penguins
Chapters	Wikis for Knowledge Antarctica*
Foundation	Wikis for Knowledge Foundation

This proposal uses the term "Wikis" as the part that will give us recognition and association with the projects, and makes the link between technology ("wiki") and mission ("knowledge"). It is distinct from the project names to reduce confusion, and legal risks for volunteers and organizations. And the concept "interconnection" is respected by having a strong link between the use of technology for the higher mission, encapsulated in the connector "for". I think for user groups, just using "Wiki" might be a good option, using the Proposal 3 hybrid model idea. GoEThe (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm against the three proposals, cf. RFC, but I do like the word Knowledge to be included in the name of the movement: this is the thing that connect all the projects . — Jules ^Talk 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice GoEThe. It has a cool ring to it. One of the things that came up in the research about both Wiki and Free Knowledge is issues around protections, which is obviously most relevant for the incorporated organizations in our movement. Just wanted to point you toward those findings, since they would probably also apply to any Wiki + Knowledge combination. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think the combination is more unique, but have no legal expertise. GoEThe (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if they came up with the idea, but User:Headbomb has mentioned a similar construction "Wikiknowledge Foundation" in a few places. Pelagic (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

World

The main problem I see with all three current proposals is that the miss the opportunity to show Wikimedia as a worldwide movement.

The Foundation could be rebranded by using the word "World" in it. "Network Trust", "Organization", and "Foundation" don't convey this, at least by themselves. For example: "Worldwide Wikipedia Foundation", "World Wikipedia Organization", "Wikipedia World Trust", or something along these lines.

This problem does need addressing, because the WMF was criticized many times for being too American. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. "WorldWide Wiki Foundation" has a nice alliteration. On the other hand, option 2 makes the case for chapters to become national Foundations, which to me means that WMF could become "Wikipedia Foundation USA", at least in the light of the 2030 recommendations Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure Equity in Decision-making. GoEThe (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Amir E. Aharoni There is nothing American in "Wikimedia Foundation"...--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but there is nothing worldwide in this name either, and this is a problem. Changing the brand can be an opportunity to finally address this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

We have actually discussed a good amount about including “International” or “Global” in the naming structure for the Foundation. We also heard some concerns that by using these terms it will create too much hierarchy between the Foundation and the affiliates, but we are very curious to see if others suggest it in the survey. There was also another consideration brought up around “international” versus “global”, with concerns that international emphasizes nations in a way that could feel not inclusive for some communities. Again, very curious to see what comes up on the survey and in discussion around this.--EZar (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, EZar (WMF), that's why I suggested "world" and not "international". The word "International", in addition to including "nation" which may be problematic, only suggests connecting several nations and not necessarily all of them, whereas "world" is neutral and suggests all of them. It also corresponds to our vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" (my emphasis).

If there was a convenient single word that talks about "all human beings", I'd suggest it, but I'm not familiar with one, and "world" is clear and easily translatable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Amire80: Esperanto has "ĉiuhoma", but I don't think that translates well. :) --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Language and translation

Quite possible I missed it, but I haven't seen any discussions about how will the names sound in languages other than English. In some languages names of some countries are the same as the names of languages spoken in them.

That's also why "Antarctica" is a bad example for a generic name. There is no "Antarctic language". There is, however, the Polish language, the name of which is related to the country of Poland; the Russian language, the name of which is related to the country of Russia; and there are many other examples.

It's well-known that Wikipedias are organized by language, not by country. This is not strongly felt in the English, but in other languages, "Wikipedia Indonesia", for example can refer to both the country and the language.

All the current proposals include a word like "Organization", "Chapter", or "Network". If people will indeed always use this word when they are speaking about the group, then the problem I'm raising here is irrelevant, but I suspect that this is not the thing that is going to happen, and that in practice people will often omit the word "organization", and then this renaming will create new, unwanted problems.

I'm not suggesting canceling the whole branding project because of this, as some people do, but I do recommend giving investing some time in translating the potential names to various languages that will be affected by this, examining how will it look like in writing and in speech, and thinking whether this will make the brand clearer or fuzzier. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Amire80:Thanks for bringing up the location/language distinction. This is in fact what the descriptor terms (Network, Organization, etc.) are intended to clarify. All 3 Naming Convention Proposals have been translated into at least four languages for illustrative purposes, which you can see on the proposal subpages (we also have Chinese to add). The survey is also available in these languages, because we want to hear what works and what doesn’t across languages. Our aim with all the multilingual feedback we collect in the surveys and on meta is to remove, refine and recombine the proposals to arrive at one naming convention that is translatable and adaptable in as many languages as possible (this is Branding Criteria 6). Thanks for starting this discussion here, we hope you plan on also capturing these points in a survey. --EZar (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why translate this fake survey at all? 3 nearly identical "alternatives", with irrelevant differences - why bother to waste time a) translating and b) taking part? And we all know since the complete ignorance of the RfC, they don't listen to the community anyway, they just do what they want and only need some windowdressing. and doctored survey numbers. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 14:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Where can I vote?

I would like to vote and choose for the current name of Wikimedia. It's a solid brandname and it differs from the leading brand Wikipedia, like Google chose for the umbrella name Alphabet. Where and when can I vote? Ymnes (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not an option those who desperately want this against the community wishes were prepared to give any of us. The only options are the old RfC and the new Straw Poll, both still open. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Opposition remains

I think I speak for the 90%+ who already opposed any use of the Wikipedia name by the WMF, when I say we still oppose co-opting the Wikipedia name by marketers for re-branding the Foundation. There are too many issues presented, and this idea should have died when it met such resounding disapproval. All 3 of the new options still present the idea that this Foundation speaks for the Wikipedia community, when it absolutely does not. And all 3 of these new options also make Wikipedia seem to be the only project among our sister projects, which is a slap in the face to anyone who volunteered their time outside the realm of just Wikipedia. The WMF has replaced the old idea of "if it's not broke, don't fix it" with "if most of the system is working, break all of the system and pay marketers to claim it is fixed". This remains a very bad idea, regardless of how much money you have wasted on it. — Coffee // have a cup // 23:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the discussion of last year, where 99% of the users disagreed for changing the Wikimedia name into Wikipedia Commons, Wikipedia Data, Wikipedia News, Wikipedia Species, Wikipedia WTF, Wikipedia Etc, has been missed by the Foundation. Apparently the users that fill their knowledge are worthless to them, when the Branding Team believes more $$$ can be earned under a different name. I expected more respect from the WMF to their users. Edoderoo (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As was stated elsewhere: The WMF as a whole, and most of ist employees, really are helpful and have respect towards those, who are Building this whole movement, the volunteers.

But this Branding Project has so far shown not even a hint of respect for the communities, is ignoring input, that doesn't fit in their predecided output, falsifies surveys to fit their bias. The project group is not trustworthy at all, they recklessly do whatever is good for their private goal. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 08:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Illustrating project scope.

The initial version of this page was illustrated with this picture, provided by the Foundation's Brand Project team:

In my opinion, this picture underestimates what the three branding proposals are proposing, which is to take the Wikipedia identity and use it for something other than an encyclopedia. That's not leaving Wikipedia out of scope entirely. As a potential alternative, I made this picture to better represent this project's scope.

Which tries to point out how the Wikipedia identity is being diluted by it. It was reverted by @Yair Rand, on the grounds that "there's a change that should be made here, but the image needs work. I'm not sure "diluted" is the right word (insufficiently neutral), and the coloring scheme is unclear." I think both are reasonable things to say about it, and per bold-revert-discuss, I thought I would open the floor to ideas for what it should say or look like. I feel that putting into words what the community thinks is being done with the Wikipedia brand might help better express the reason for so much community opposition to this project. TomDotGov (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Using different shades of grey is rather confusing, as it normally would indicate "levels" of something. Wikipedia's identity wouldn't be "less" affected by the proposal than the WMF's, I don't think, given that its name is the one with the meaning being changed. Perhaps a more general redesign of the image would be in order. There's a transition being proposed from

• (Current.) The movement as a whole with one name and all supporting organizations sharing the brand, in contrast to all projects which have particular identities,
• (Proposed.) The movement, supporting organizations, and one particular project sharing a brand, and all other projects being labeled as "under" that name.

Perhaps something with different colored lines? I'm not sure. --Yair rand (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest that there are practical limits to what I can do. I'm not really a great artist, so I don't think I can really make major changes like those myself, especially not without the source document the original image was made from. What we had there was about at the limits of my ability. At the same time, there was something that felt wrong about having a big picture that falsely implied that having the Foundation share Wikipedia's meant Wikipedia was out of scope for the product. It really should be in some sort of middle ground, which is what I was trying to capture. TomDotGov (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the graphic. The text says "The 2030 Movement Brand Project proposes names for the movement, the affiliates, and the Foundation. Changes are not being proposed to the names of the projects." and the graphic illustrates that point. If someone wants to create derivative versions to illustrate their point that is fine of course, but please do not change the survey materials. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. This graphic implies that Wikipedia is out of scope for the project, when the brand project team is trying to steal Wikipedia's identity. Recently you asked for more perspectives about the foundation's obstruction of community participation in this project. You've gotten many community perspectives since then. I hope that you will finally begin to respect them. TomDotGov (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Very well. I have mentioned this case at Request for help mediating in contentious edits. Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed here without a clearer graphic. The visual as presented is confusing to some -- Qgil, can you make a variation that makes clear that, in addition to the left-hand side of the diagram, all name considerations are derivatives of Wikipedia? The description works without the illustration, so it seems understandable to leave it out as long as it is confusing. The illustration is clarifying scope by narrowing focus to what will be impacted here; that does seem to include how and where we use Wikipedia. –SJ talk  03:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As the small group of renamers usurpes the name of one project, this project is definitely within the scope of this renaming enterprise. How else should this be made visually clear? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Dagegen

Abgesehen von allem anderen bin ich gegen die Umbenenung, weil:

1. es in der Abstimmung keine Option gibt, gegen eine Umbenennung zu stimmen
2. eine externe Firma als Abstimmer verwendet wird, obwohl es wikieigene Stimmverfahren gibt, und ich einfach keine Lust habe die Zeit aufzubringen, um mich selbst zu überzeugen, dass das alles DSGVO-konform zugeht.
3. Projektinhalt und Projektadministration natürlich unterschiedliche Namen haben müssen, damit die Verwirrung nicht noch größer wird
4. Im deutschen Sprachraum häufig das Wort "Wiki" anstelle von Wikipedia oder anstelle eines Namens für ein nicht-WMF-Wiki verwendet wird und Menschen auf Nachfrage, was sie denn nun meinen in geradezu massiv aggressiver Weise eine Antwort verweigern und wo dies in sozialen Medien möglich ist sogar blocken. Viele Menschenb wollen garnicht verschiedene Projekte auseinanderhalten, sondern alles über einen Kamm scheren und verteufeln. Eine sinnvolle Umbenennung wäre es. das Wort "Wiki" komplett fallen zu lassen und nicht-WMF-wikis zu überlassen.

--C.Suthorn (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation by Google: Apart from everything else, I am against the renaming because:

1. there is no option in the voting to vote against a renaming
2. an external company is used as a voter instead of the usual, well-established voting procedures. I do not want to spend my time to prove if the external procedure is GDPR-compliant.
3. of course, project content and administration must have different names to not cause extra confusion
4. in the German-speaking world, the word "wiki" is one the one hand often used for Wikipedia, on the other hand "wiki" is often used for some projects not related to WMF. If you ask people what they do mean, they react in a massively aggressive manner and refuse to answer, on social media they may even block you. Many people are not interested in distinguish different projects apart, they just want to lump together all so-called "wikis" and demonize everything. Renaming would mould make sense if we abandon the wording "wiki..." completely and leave it to non-WMF projects.

--OlafJanssen (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the above English translation, although I do not agree with the last of the four points mentioned by User:C.Suthorn.--Niki.L (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Office hours week of 22 June, extending survey response period

Hi everyone, The Brand Project team will be hosting two general office hours this week to answer the remaining questions from last week's presentation, as well as take other questions live. The office hours will be recorded and made available after.

• 23 June at 16:30 UTC - Join via this link
• 26 June at 00:00 UTC - Join via this link

Additionally, in response to a number of requests, the survey will now remain open until 7 July. Looking forward to seeing some of you tomorrow. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Deutsch: Verlängerung der Antwortfrist für Umfragen; Bürozeiten (google.meet) in der Woche vom 22. Juni

Hallo allerseits, das Brand Project-Team wird diese Woche zwei allgemeine Bürozeiten veranstalten, um die verbleibenden Fragen aus der Präsentation der letzten Woche zu beantworten und andere Fragen live zu beantworten.

Die Bürozeiten werden aufgezeichnet und anschließend zur Verfügung gestellt.

• 23. Juni um 16:30 UTC (Berlin, 18:30 MESZ) - Tritt über diesen Link bei: [1].
• 26. Juni um 00:00 UTC (Berlin, 02:00 MESZ) - Tritt über diesen Link bei: [2].

Aufgrund einer Reihe von Anfragen bleibt die Umfrage nun bis zum 7. Juli 2020 geöffnet. Ich freue mich darauf, einige von Euch morgen zu sehen. [Signatur des Autors für den nicht übersetzten Beitrag, siehe oben]

(Übersetzung: --Dirk123456 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC))

• I'd just like to encourage people with questions to join in the next office hour on the 26th, above and beyond asking questions beforehand, if you can make it. They've been willing to freely answer questions I asked when I called in and engage. We didn't agree on the two queries I asked (though they were happy with my setting out of the current respective viewpoints) but it was engaged with actively, and if someone has questions that might be more amenable to negotiation or shades of consideration, it could well be of use. As a lesser note, one of them has a nice cat. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear:, thanks for the encouragement. I joined the office hours this morning 2AM my timezone. The brand project is terrific and consists of terrific people. At the end of the call all volunteers on the call agreed the renaming to Wikpedia Foundation is the way to go, though there have to be a lot of concerns and fears of passionate volunteer contributors to be addressed before moving on. I was happy to discuss freely those concerns and fears I perceive so many people have, which necessitate a research into their unexpressed and or unmet needs., Communication about the general strategic or long term plans of the Foundation with respect to sister projects and affiliates is necessary, taking into account the what will come out of the implementation the recommendations of Wikimedia Movement 2030 strategy process, for which virtual events will be host, to be designed by a design committee currently in the process of becoming assembled. Down the road there is a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of community and affiliate input to come to steer the implementation of strategy recommendations. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel I should note that none of the volunteers who dropped in during the first call supported the change to wikipedia foundation. Nosebagbear (talk)

Table including all names in one view

I made a combined table of proposed names for seeing them all on one page, in case anyone else finds this helpful. –SJ talk  20:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming problems

[From my comments in the rebranding survey, and posts on wikimedia-l]

"Movement"

Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor, but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not consider themselves part of a movement. I feel that I am part of the Wikimedia _community_.

Note that in the English Wikipedia the title of the relevant article is indeed "Wikipedia community", _not_ "Wikipedia movement" (which is a redirect). In fact, the word "movement" does not appear in the main text of the article at all. "Wikimedia movement" is the title of its article, but it is described as "the global community of contributors to Wikimedia Foundation projects". A community of contributors is not the same thing as a movement. I would say that none of the definitions given in the Definitions section of the Social movement article apply to us.

One significant problem to using "movement" is that some, including the WMF, exploit the connotations of the word towards social justice, or a "greater good", as a rationalization for behaviors that a community might not support (and in many cases our community has indeed opposed WMF's behavior). Another is the implication that there is basically a core set of beliefs and priorities that all those involved support. This is clearly not the case in the Wikimedia community. I also think there is an assumption that in a movement, there are institutions that those in the movement explicitly or implicitly authorize to speak for them. Again, clearly this is not the case in the Wikimedia community overall.

Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

Our overall community centers around the current Wikimedia concept, not Wikipedia. Naming the whole from one its parts is ambiguous, confusing, and disrespectful to non-Wikipedia projects. The majority of the population of the United States is white, but it would be absolutely preposterous to rename the country to the White United States of America, even if that is how people in other countries (and Americans) think of it.

We are not selling a product or service. I think it is _good_ that some organizations and people do not know about our plethora of projects, as that gives us an opportunity to talk with them about the other projects. I believe that changing the name to "Wikipedia" will make it more difficult to get outsiders to pay attention to non-Wikipedia projects.

I believe that moving to "Wikipedia" will damage our reputation. In addition to the reasons above, it will likely alienate at least some of those involved in non-Wikipedia projects. It could turn the community into the Wikipedia community, as our other projects fade away.

Name of WMF

To me a trust implies one party relegating authority over a resource to a second party, who is expected to manage it well, and return it at some point to the first party or a third party. I do not see the WMF's role as including such as a notion. I also do not think that including "Trust" makes it any clearer that the WMF is where to go for legal issues. (Also, I do find it ironic that the proposal suggests incorporating the word "Trust" in the name of WMF, given how low the community trust in WMF is.)

"Wikimedia Organization" does not sound like the name of something, but rather a general description of it.

"Wiki" is too generic to refer to WMF projects--there are far too many other wikis in the world. I have to say I am truly astonished to see this presented as a legitimate option. Various other wiki communities (such as those at fandom.com) would be understandably furious with WMF for trying to co-opt "Wiki" for themselves. How could that possibly not be damaging to our reputation?

I think "Foundation" is a good word to describe what WMF does.

Other

"We network around our best-known brand to connect the movement together". That feels like marketing-speak. It is unclear what you are trying to communicate. I do not think that contributors of non-WP projects want to "network" around Wikipedia.

The lack of hierarchy in names is detrimental to communication and understanding of our work.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libcub (talk) 24. Jun. 2020, 04:41:12 (UTC)

Biased survey

The survey is so blatantly biased that I think I will save a copy and use it as an example of what not to do in a survey when I teach research methods courses. WMF has several staff members who have expertise in survey methodology--it is a shame that they were not consulted, or that their feedback was ignored. So sad. WMF executives and Board, you are better than this. Libcub (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Even worse: The Board thinks this survey is useful: "Does the Board still want you to take the survey[6] then? Yes." (Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board Update on Branding). So the first step to an improved communication has to be a biased survey. --Magiers (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This branding project may not have any value worth attempting to salvage.

There comes a time when going further is throwing good money after bad, and wasting time which could be better spent doing nothing. I think we may have passed that point. The "new" proposals seem to be digging the hole of mistrust and failure to communicate even deeper.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Foundation for technical support to Wikipedia, Wikidata and other WikiMedia projects"

How about a name that reflects what the foundation is actually doing? Jura1 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, FTSWWOWP is a bit of a mouthful, even if you can pronounce it "foots-woup" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We can still speak about Wikipedia, Wikidata, and the great things the projects do. The name of the foundation is just something that is written in registries. Jura1 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It also provides legal support, and a few other things, but I do agree with trying to emphasize that it's an outside support organization with a minimal role. --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"technical" isn't necessarily hardware related. Jura1 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hammer problem

If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you hire marketers, you get brand value, renaming, etc. We are not selling anything. We have no care about brand value or any other marketing buzz words. We are giving away the store, the goods and even the knowledge and good will - for free and all the time. We don't need a marketing solution. Wikimedia was named differently on purpose and the purpose hasn't changed. So no name change is desired. Rmhermen (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)