Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Congratulations on your success

Cheers!

In the German language edition of the encyclopedia traditionally known as Wikipedia there is an annual competition for the un-word of the year. I have the honour of announcing that "Wikipedia Foundation" was victorious this time. Cheers, enjoy your champagne. → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 15:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, just to explain (not to follow the sarcasm): In Germany, a jury annually announces a "word of the year" that was most typical for the public discourses in that year. Another yury announces an "unword of the year", often an euphemism or a word denoting something negative. German Wikipedia imitates this tradition and elects annually a Wikipedia "unword". Ziko (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not give too many thoughts about that, but it is of course one more indicator for the reputation of the detached ivory tower WMF, that has lost in some parts completely the connection with the main and most important part of the Wikiverse, the online community of authors and volunteer developers. This anti-community enterprise with the usurpation of one project by some detached functionaries for personal gain (I fail to see any other reason for sticking to this despite the complete rejection by the most superior entity) is one more piece in this picture (together with SuperProtect, FLOW and other anti-community measures from detached WMFers). Well done, well deserved, I'd like it more, if the WMF would return to the communities instead of alienating them over and over again. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming this page

As it's quite clear, that this is not a movement brand project, but just a WMF brand project, this should be reflected by the name of this page. As far as I see this there is even just a very small group within the WMF who pushes this enterprise against the movement and the core of the movement, the online communities. They seem to have some special agenda, unbeknown to anybody else, and push this ruthlessly, without paying any regard to dissenting input. This is not a project by the movement, it's more a project against the movement by some heavy invested pushers. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Separating the major + minor issues

Stray thought this eve: There are three* separable questions here.

1. Will the WMF rebrand as the "Wikipedia Foundation" (or equivalent)?
2. How can we improve branding across the Wikimedia projects, affiliates, and movement?
3. How can/should the names of the foundation, the projects, and the movement be used in fundraising for the Foundation and other movement entities?

We should resolve the first question first.

• Don't bury the lead that the first question is on the table, in a prolonged discussion of the second. This erodes trust.
• There are two outcomes for the first: if it happens, people will be unhappy about it dragging out. If it doesn't happen, you won't be able to thoughtfully consider other options until deciding that.
• A supermajority of the community opposes this change. If it happens, that will dominate the response; don't tarnish the rest of a brand discussion with that fallout. (I can't imagine any benefit that justifies such a specifically brand-injuring fallout, but the option remains on the table, so some people must be able to.)
• Preserve the time of people devoting time to related work such as the Committee.
• The second question can be resolved efficiently, and in pieces, with on-wiki discussions such as the recent MW + WL logo designs. Divide and conquer; no need for elaborate frameworks.
• The third question references the others, but could be usefully answered for today's name + brand framework.

–SJ talk  23:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's right, that the community seems to care the most about #1, and that one of the problems with the Brand Project to date was the refusal to address #1, especially after the initial survey showed there was no support for the Foundation using the name Wikipedia. There does to be a third issue, that seems like it deserves to be considered at the level of the first two:

3. How can the names of the projects be used when fundraising for the Foundation and other movement entities?

That's an issue that's been brought up by the Foundation staff and board, most recently by User:Doc James here. [1] I think it's related to 1, but maybe not the same thing - I suspect that there may be a different set of rules for fundraising than other branding uses. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 20:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point, added the third Q.

If the answer to the first question is anything but a loud and clear "Never ever!" the WMF will never again gain any trust by the communities, because it will say with that, that it doesn't give a flying f*** about the communities. That option is completely off the table if the communities are of any relevance for the WMF.

The question for the affiliates depends of their target/interest. If they are a group of Wikipedians, of course they should use Wikipedia as a name, if they are huge orgs for all projects, like WMDE, WMUK or such, of course they should use Wikimedia. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Seventh Criteria

@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)

I was talking about this report, where they tried to rationalise the gist of the RfC away by quite mind-boggling stretches of fantasy reporting. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Update from the Ad hoc Brand Committee

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)

Update

Is there any update about the work that has been done by the Ad Hoc Advisors, and what steps has been taken by the Brand Committee so far? Thanks, RamzyM (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

7th point

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)

Historical?

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)

2021 Board of Trustees Update

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)