Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board Update on Branding

TL;DR

TL;DR: Nothing has been finalized yet.

I'm not super concerned about this one case. I actually agree with the rebranding, unlike most of the community. But I am disappointed that again the Foundation is taking action that seems to ignore the people who actually build and maintain this movement. Again, the working level staff are sent out to continue to push towards strategic objectives set by WMF executives and quell or completely ignore discontent, rather than engage in meaningful consultation. Again, the community needs to escalate seemingly every major project that the WMF initiates to our Board representatives, rather than being involved in setting the agenda in the first place.

Who does the WMF work for? Why would it be anyone other than the people who are building and maintaining the core of the movement? I accept that there should be some level of trustee-type representation, where some hard decisions are made even if the community disagrees with them because The Experts^TM think it's the best thing to do, but in order to make those decisions you need to have trust and good will. There is none left to speak of.

The current governance structure is not working. The Board does not have adequate, cross-sectional community involvement and never could. And this is the only beacon of hope that anything will change. What is being done about this recommendation? Who is leading its development and implementation? – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

How can the community indicate that the use of Wikipedia in the name of the Foundation is unacceptable?

I'd like to thank the Board for producing this statement, which begins to clarify some of the confusing and contradictory information that the community has been hearing. I hope that the Board will continue to work directly with the on-wiki community on the topic of Branding, as it has for the past few days. I would also like to thank the Foundation staff that have begun to take a new approach to communicating with the community, even before this message was publicly released.

One constant over the life of the Branding project is that the community has made it clear that the answer to the question of "Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?" is a no. This has been a constant from the results of the research and planning phase; the now 11:1 against RfC on this topic, which just passed 500 participants; to the near-unanimous opposition in the recent straw poll.

The survey mentioned in this statement does not include a clear option that allows the community taking it to indicate that the foundation taking on a name that uses Wikipedia is unacceptable. Given this, I'd like to ask what is the best manner for members of the community to continue to convey this message to the Foundation and its Board? TomDotGov (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• The board update came pretty fast, thanks for their swift and detailed response. The August meeting should be an important one, which has 3 possible outcomes according to the response. What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding? The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3) continue with it -- Tito Dutta (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd hope that a fourth option could be added to this - that the Branding project be restarted, with a directive to work with the community, and not with consultants. That would include respecting the community's decision that using Wikipedia in Foundation branding is unacceptable, and then working with the community to generate better names. Actually, I do wonder why the board considers spending resources to explore Wikipedia branding to be good financial stewardship, when the resources could be spend exploring names that do not increase confusion between the Foundation and the project. I realize that it's hard to change a project that's underway quickly, but it does seem like a waste to explore three branding concepts that generated little-to-no support. TomDotGov (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any sign, the Board even rethinks the use of the name Wikipedia. In this message, it is mentioned:

1. a personal statement, that the signer thinks, this use "makes a lot of sense".
2. an imperious statement, that "the Board absolutely can change the name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it decides" (surely this imperious communication is needed in the actual situation...)
3. a statement, that they still search feedback with a survey, that only centers about the Wikipedia branding, and no realization, that this manipulated and without alternatives presented survey in itself was an insult to the people.

And what is not mentioned at all is the RfC from the community, which outcome is still ignored in any form.

I am more than disappointed by this message, because it makes so many words about promising open communication, and still is not open in the core question of the branding process: "Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?" even when there is an overwhelming rejection from the volunteers in the Wikipedia- and Non-Wikipedia-projects to that name. It is not even open in acknowledging this rejection. --Magiers (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I read it differently. They are not saying "we will rethink our decision to use Wikipedia", they are saying "we have not yet properly thought about it". They have so far been saying "yes" to requests from staff to work on it, though possibly have not been clear with staff about their own expectations. As to the RfC - if they genuinely believe that all 500-odd of us are wrong and changing the name is very important - then yes they can change the name. However we can be sure that the Board know about it and are thinking about it. I expect there are a range of different views on the Board about how important the RfC is to them... Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You can assume this, but it's not communicated. I would have expected different in a message, that aims for clarification and better communication. --Magiers (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Although the current poll design is completely flawed, people can still express their desire for the current name in it by declining all 3 options (strongly disagree) and pointing out in all the commentary or additional suggestion option that they prefer Wikimedia and that a Wikimedia option is missing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the poll can be used against its intention, to try and give an unwanted honest feedback. I have done so in the last days, and it made me more and more angry with every predetermined question, until I even had to rank one of the disagreed options as my second best choice. I don't understand why the first step to an improved communication in the future has to be a manipulative, biased and intransparent (compared to all Wiki-standards) poll. --Magiers (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:TomDotGov and User:Magiers, actually I felt a little better. Just 4 days ago the situation was "we are going to do it", and now the board has given statement in which the first two possible options are "stop" and "pause". I don't know if the board is getting a one-sided picture from the report (I hope it is not). Everywhere they are requested to go through the comments, RfC etc. The voice of the protest is clear, robust and it is everywhere. I really want to see this voice is heard and a strong decision is taken in the August meeting. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Rebranding

To be honest, I don't want Wikimedia Foundation to change a new name when it now becomes too famous and popular in the world. Have a look at Google Scholar, we have more than 24k results. Can anyone explain to me the main reason why we need to change this name? We can change logos, “taglines,” colours, typography,... but not the name, please. Alphama (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Even we change the name, I believe that the new name will not attract many more people because Wikimedia itself is a management project more than an online encyclopedia project where everybody can contribute their edits like Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc. Alphama (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

According to this statement, «In 2018, the Board agreed that the name of the Wikimedia Foundation does not help us with our strategic goals». (Apparently we won't know until August whether the current board also thinks so, nor whether the board thinks it's good to have a universally opposed name.) I'm curious how the board reached this conclusion: was there any data or research to prove that the name itself is the problem, rather than how it has (not) been used in the last decade or so? Typical research methods would include focus groups and various kinds of surveys and sociological tests, but so far I've only seen some very mild number about generic awareness, which doesn't tell us much. Nemo 08:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The other TL;DR

We're sorry you're upset. However we're going to keep doing the things that upset you. Please try to be less upset about them.

Well, the Board acknowledges that there's a trust deficit.

Sadly their only answer for it is to exhort the community to trust them more. There's no mention of anything the WMF is going to do to try and regain the trust of the community. Indeed, there's no mention of any change in the way the WMF operates. The much criticised survey is going ahead unaltered. The Board continues to stress that it can use the name "Wikipedia Foundation" no matter what the community says or does. There's nothing about the apparent contradiction between being incapable of holding a Board election due to COVID-19 but perfectly capable of pushing forward with wide ranging changes to the movement.

We're assured that everything that's gone wrong was done in good faith. Then in the next paragraph the Board tells us "we [the WMF and the community] do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly".

The changes the Board calls for are almost entirely on the community side. The community needs to have faith in the Board and the WMF. The community needs to be more polite. The community needs to be constructive in its feedback. The WMF, we are told, needs to communicate better. Yet even that is blamed the community for being too intimidating.

I do believe that the Board genuinely wants to fix the trust deficit. Sadly they appear to think they can achieve this without making any changes to the way they and the WMF operate. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement

Just wanted to say thank you for the statement - it is very clear and honest, which is great (and better than what the Board has said on many previous occasions). I hope the Board and the WMF staff involved can find a way forward between now and the August meeting that engages more with the community. At the moment there is a big gap between where the staff are at with the survey, and where much of the community is at with the RfC. However it seems to me that there are options that haven't even been looked at yet. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you all for working on this. I'm not sure about "clear" though. If it's clear, I would expect the staff to soon correct or retract some of their previous statements. If they remain unchanged, we must conclude that the previous ambiguous or misleading situation is still in place. Nemo 08:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am with Chris here - clear and honest statement. Thank you!--Schreibvieh (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Will happen

Executive statement by Heather Walls, June 18: "We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board." (Bold Type!)

Board Update on Branding by Nataliia Tymkiv, June 22: "What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding? The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3) continue with it."

Am I the only one who sees a blatant contradiction here? I'd prefer the second statement to be true but how can I be sure? Is this an effort to calm the waves while the decision is, in reality and behind the scene, already final? Or is it a correction: No, the first statement was premature, the re-brand has not yet been decided by the board? I sincerely hope that Nataliia Tymkiv's statement is correct but in my opinion this would mean that Heather Walls's statement is not correct.--Mautpreller (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to have an answer specifically by User:Heather (WMF) on this topic, as I, and many others probably, thought that bolded sentence was overly aggressive and made all words about community inclusion obsolete. Now there is a glimmer of hope, that the community will after all have input in the decision, that's a 180°-turn from the executive statement. I'd be pleased, to read some affirmation of this U-turn by the (WMF)ers. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 08:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am optimist and eager to see something like this. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• There has been a miscommunication which Nat’s statement clarifies. “A rebrand” will happen. We have not, however, decided specifically about the WMF name change and we are awaiting the results of the brand project. Pundit (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There are two problems with this interpretation: First, "stop the project/pause the work/continue with it" all refer to "branding", viz, the Branding project. Second, looking at the RfC: the communities have a very severe problem with the name change to Wikipedia. Not with "the branding project". The reason is crystal clear: Wikipedia is the well-introduced name of a multitude of volunteer projects and the organization tries to claim this name for itself. And Wikipedia is not the name of the so-called sister projects, they will have no representation in the name "Wikipedia Foundation" (or similar). These points are the cause for all of the turmoil, the "miscommunication", and so on. It's this question we are talking about. Honestly, I am not very much interested in "logos, “taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above." That's for the organization to decide. Even if the organization wants another name, so be it. But not Wikipedia. Isn't it understandable that the communities demand to have a say in the use of their name? It's not so very complicated: the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are two distinct entities, which is proven not only by the protest of the Wikipedia communities as well as the Sister Project communities but also by the board's reservation that they can change the Foundation's name to Wikipedia regardless what the communities say. So this name change would be a transgression into the field of the communities.Mautpreller (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pundit: maybe you've not read Nat statement with enough attention. As Mautpreller noted, it doesn't say a rebrand will happen. It says a rebrand may eventually happen, if the Board decides so in August.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm basically offering an interpretation that is clearly not considered, while which is not contradicting any of these statements. What I think most people care about is the name, and a decision in this respect has not been made. Pundit (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I care that every single statement seems to contradict the previous one. I agree that the name is the most contentious part of all this, but underlying all that is the fear and uncertainty over what is really going on and if people are telling us the truth or trying to trick us by telling us what we want to hear. Your statement, "“A rebrand” will happen." Seems in direct contradiction of Nat's statement "The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet". Either it has approved a reccomendation related to the rebrand already or it hasn't; it can't be both. The only other way I can make consistent the statements that a rebrand will both definitely happen, and that the board hasn't approved anything yet or even seen the final report-is if the board had totally abandoned its fiduciary duties, and just agrees to everything presented to it. Bawolff (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A rebrand will happen is not my statement. It is a quote from Heather, and I assume it must have referred to a general rebrand, which is not really a Board-level decision, at least definitely not as much as a name change definitely is. The Board has not approved any name changes yet, we have not made any decisions regarding rebranding. I hope that's clear now. Pundit (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never known of a nonprofit where the Board wouldn't sign off on a change to the brand- though obviously a minor change would attract less discussion and scrutiny.... Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A fuller version of the statement is "We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board." (bold original) That directly conflicts with what you're saying here. I get that you're trying to make things clear - but is the executive statement wrong? TomDotGov (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pundit: let me recall your exact words: "There has been a miscommunication which Nat’s statement clarifies. “A rebrand” will happen. We have not, however, decided specifically about the WMF name change" - What you say here, basically confirming what Heather said, is in direct contradiction with what Nat wrote: A rebrand may, or may not happen, depending on the Board August meeting. You may have your own opinion on this, of course, but you really shouldn't put it on the mouth of the Board chair. That only increases entropy.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@DarwIn: Thanks for your comment, but I actually consulted with Nat before posting my response. I believe it is accurate to say that Nat likely referred to rebranding including a name change (that it may or may not happen), while Heather may have meant a rebranding in a wider sense. Without further guesswork of what was meant, I think that it is useful re-affirm what Nat and I wrote: the Board has not made a decision regarding a name change, period. Pundit (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

real feedback

If the board desires real feedback by the community at large to consider it in its decision, I'd strongly recommend 2 steps:

• a) redo/redesign the survey with at least a Wikimedia option (status quo) but possibly other community suggestion as well.
• b) Many community members do not follow Meta regularly or at all, nevertheless their feedback matters as much as that of those being more active on Meta. This means for a meaningful feedback those members needed to be made aware of this survey. The best way to do that, would be to drop an email notification or at least an internal use page notification for all regularly active members in the various Wikimedia projects (say people with at least a few hundred edits and active within last year or so).

Anything else in particular the survey in its current form will not provide a proper community feedback and likely to increase the rift or bitterness between WMF and community even further.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There was an attempt to make the survey known by a central notice banner, but that was correctly denied, because of the sub-standard survey, that doesn't adhere with WMF-standards. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a real feedback process. The first thing is addressing what problems exactly this rebranding exercice is supposed to solve. Because if it's just "Wikimedia as a brand is unrecognizable" from a survey of average joes and janes, that's because a) it's never been used anywhere prominent b) averages Joes and Janes don't need to care about the WMF. If it's to highlight other projects, there's a million ways to increase their prominence, none of which needs to pretends that WikiSpecies = Wikipedia. If it's to make clearer what the relationship between the WMF, Chapters, Wikipedia, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikisource, etc... are, then that's what Org Charts are for.

MAYBE a new name can help with these things. But one thing that is clear is that calling anything but Wikipedia "Wikipedia something" is a no go and will not clarify anything. The only thing it will achieve is make random Joes and Janes think that things that aren't Wikipedia are Wikipedia. Headbomb (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, volunteers are tired, really tired, and there's a pandemic

Great to see the WMF Board are being frank. That's super, a great improvement and we all feel better.

However this "branding" comms disaster has been going on significantly longer than the pandemic, and it distracts the WMF and core volunteers when we should all be focused on mitigating serious disruption to our lives and the future of our families, and doing our part to help folks globally with finding fact-checked information because they trust Wikimedia projects as a go-to resource.

Park this wasteful "non-consultation". The WMF has officially been asking the community for feedback time after time on this. Each time the replies do not support what the consultants working for the WMF would like to hear, so it gets reframed as another stage, yet another consultation, while ignoring the very very clear feedback from the last consultation.

Stop. We are too tired of this dancing around playing the branding game like the WMF is Amazon. Save the donor's money, avoid burning out the crucial volunteers you keep stating are important to the future of the WMF, and park this idea until at least 2022. Throwing unspecified-but-must-be-a-huge-pile-by-now money at "rebranding" is not core to the strategy, and distracts everyone from doing meaningful work that's needed, in fact essential, for public health, right now.

Jeez, if you want something that shows willing, try something that costs the WMF $0 and recycle some of your currently unused old kit to volunteers so we can put it to good use.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

+1--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 That makes complete sense. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to the asking [...] time after time: I appreciate that now we have this statement, but in the RfC there have been many, many questions by the community that did not get the attention they deserved before the pandemic became a thing, and neither during this crisis. → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 15:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• +1, and also I just endorsed your request. Ain92 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• +1 It makes sense, which is why I fear it will be ignored. --Millbart (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• +1 - and to the WMF: "But this “elephant in the room” feeling is hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this created a lot of bitterness." - there are two levels. One upper level, the WMF and one lower level, the Community. The WMF decides about nearly everything over our heads, even we do all the work. Even we're creating the ground for collecting all the money. And now WE hurt the feelings of those who ruling us, even we're by far not looking in each others eyes? This is a bad joke! I will quote Berthold Brecht here with some (mainly in Germany) famous words (refers to the en:East German uprising of 1953):

"The Secretary of the Writers Union

Had flyers distributed in Stalin Way that said

That the People had frivolously

Thrown away the Government's Confidence

And that they could only regain it

Through Redoubled Work. But wouldn't it be

Simpler if the Government

Simply dissolved the People

And elected another?" -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• +1 Libcub (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to have some questions answered by the board

(copied from wikimedia-l, in response to the Board statement) @Antanana, Pundit, and Shani (WMF):

Thank you Nat. I'm Dutch, and the Dutch are known to be direct, and even I find your extensive statement direct. That was your intent to do. Thanks, I welcome that. I know nearly every other culture would prefer less direct communication.

As an employer you have a duty to protect your employees against intimidation by volunteers. As a volunteer I also like to be protected against intimidation.

In this process I have a lonely voice among volunteers, and I do not feel intimidated. This in contrast to conversations years ago. Maybe I have developed.

I wish you have adequate procedures to deal with situations in which employees are intimidated.

The emotions are high among many volunteers, who feel betrayed, not seen and not heard, and not recognized for their volunteer work.

Volunteers care for the autonomy of the online communities to self govern. They fear the brand renaming as a power grap by the WMF to control the projects, and moreover favor one over all the others.

Commons and Wikidata are big projects now, and volunteers fear that renaming to Wikipedia will change the status of those projects, and fear less attention or support for those projects by the Foundation.

Could you please indicate the position of the Board with respect to autonomy and self governance of the online communities, and with respect to support for Commons, Wikidata and other sister projects?

Another fear by many volunteers is on going centralization, centering more power and resources in the Foundation, in contrast with affiliates and communities. One of the central themes of the 2018-2020 Strategy process was a clear call for decentralization and creation of regional/thematic hubs.

Could you please indicate the position of the Board with respect to centralization and decentralization?

My estimate is that the Foundation will raise between 2 and 3 billion dollars between now and 2030. Mostly from small donor contributions.

Could you indicate the Board estimate for this period, and indicate in which direction you plan to spend the revenue? What will be the slice of the cake for the affiliates. It looks like that by 2030 there will be enough money to fund an affiliate office in every country. How likely is a move in that direction?

Deadline to respond is 14 calendar days. Please do extend the answering period of the survey with 14 days as well, so people will be able to digest answers to the above questions before filling out the survey.

Have a nice day, Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A blindingly obvious solution to this shitshow

Given that

• The board (and presumably others) doesn't like Wikimedia Foundation / Wikimedia as a name
• Wikipedians and Wikimedians resoundingly don't want the WMF to rebrand itself to Wikipedia anything

Then just pick a name that isn't Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Headbomb (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That might be a way out as a compromise, but personally fail to see the need to change the current naming scheme. It seems to have us served as well so far and i'm not convinced about the brand recognition argument at all. Yes it might increase the brand recognition for the WMF itself somewhat, but do we need that? Is it yielding any significant benefits for the community? I still have the feeling that simply treating the WMF with a standard corporation marketing approach, where standard wisdom suggest optimizing brand recognition to the last $\epsilon$ is needed (for profit optimization?). But as somebody already pointed out above WMF is not Amazon and in particular the community doesn't want it to be Amazon. Now there is nothing with rebranding as such (why as long some think it helps for whatever) as long as community won't mind or cares and it won't mess with established naming conventions and identities. Unfortunately those are not the case and this could/should have dtermined much earlier in the process.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As as person who's had to explain what many things that sound the same but aren't, I could appreciate that a better name could help. Wikimedia, sounds like Wikipedia, sounds like MediaWiki, sounds like MetaWiki. And then there's Wikimedia (the movement) vs Wikimedia Foundation. So yes, a rebrand to something that have more distinct names for distinct things could help in a lot of situations. For example, something like

Old	New
Wikimedia movement	WikiMovement*
Wikimedia Foundation	WikiMovement* Foundation
Wikimedia Canada	WikiMovement* Canada
MediaWiki	WikiCore
MetaWiki	WikiGlobal
Wikipedia	Wikipedia
Commons	WikiCommons
Wikisource	Wikisource
* Or WikiKnowledge movement/Foundation/Canada/... (or similar)

This has strong branding, doesn't pretend that A is B, doesn't highjack existing brands/project identities, doesn't have the same potential for confusion as the MediaWiki/Wikimedia/MetaWiki/Wikimedia Foundation mix, etc... This isn't the only way to achieve this, but something like this would have a lot more buy in, and would not pretend Commons is Wikipedia and vice versa. Not that it's a perfect thing (it might too strongly rely on Wiki...something, which could cause confusion with Wikia and other non-WMF wikis, but that will always be the case to some extent). Headbomb (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility is that people who do not like Wikimedia just leave Wikimedia. There are plenty of other projects to support in the world. Nemo 14:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• As proposed by Ziko, there's a set of names which mention Wikipedia but still make the distinction clear, consider e. g. The More Than Wikipedia Foundation, The Not Just Wikipedia Foundation, The Not Only Wikipedia Foundation etc. They aren't confusingly similar to MediaWiki and at the same time a bit more clear for the laypeople. Ain92 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Headbomb, Ain92, Ziko and anyone else willing to propose and ideas about names, this is an invitation to share them at Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming convention proposals and/or at the survey itself. Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification req: board statement as a group or the personal statement of member of the board?

I am not sure if this is the official Board statement that every member of the board has seen and endorsed, or the personal statement of the NTymkiv (WMF) as a board member? — regards, Revi 12:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a statement from Nat, that several Board members (including me) had the chance to comment on and suggest edits to. Joint statements take more time to coordinate (we're all only people, with work, life, different time zones, etc.). They are also much more impersonal and bland. While some Board members had a chance to reflect on the statement, it is something that Nat, and Nat only had the final word on. However, I endorse and support this statement. Pundit (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Better to have a prompt, clear and honest statement from the (acting) Chair than spend a long time workshopping a statement the entire Board can authorise, in my view. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I was also wondering. Thanks for asking Revi Anthere (talk)

Plain speak vs corporate speak

Instead of completely meaningless pablum like "our strategic goals", how about you explain, clearly, what these supposed goals are.

Because if your strategic goals aren't

1. Have Wikipedia have more and better content
2. Have Wikidata have more and better data
3. Have Commons have more and better images, files, sounds, etc.
4. Have WikiSource have more and better sources
5. Increase editor activity / recruit more editors accross all Wikimedia projects
6. Have Wikimedia projects have more and better technical support

It really shouldn't be surprising that people aren't buying in. enwiki has en:WP:HERE which explains the purpose of being a Wikipedian. If the WMF isn't the equivalent of HERE for Wikimedia projects, it seriously needs to re-evaluate its mission.

Presumably this rebranding nonsense is to "Expand public awareness and support for the Wikimedia movement" (from [1]). Sure, by all means, increase awareness. But that doesn't mean "since Bob doesn't understand our org chart, we need to plaster Wikipedia everywhere so Bob can go home thinking he understands something when he doesn't".

You want to increase awareness and donations in a way the community would support? Have Jimbo update his donation message. Other links that should be of relevance are

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#What,_exactly,_is_the_problem_that_this_is_attempting_to_address?
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Press_primers_/_partner_primers
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Branding_option_that_don't_involve_hijacking_the_Wikipedia_brand

Headbomb (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

+1--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 --Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 Libcub (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Central point

Dear Nataliia. You wrote:

In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction, recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our global mission

Speaking as a long year Wikinews editor:

1. Does the board believe using "Wikipedia" will help growing the reach of the Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia?
2. How can the WMF use of the brand "Wikipedia" help growing the reach of Wikinews, if the real Wikipedia hates us and tries virtual everything to destroy Wikinews? For example the removal of the Wikinews link from the "In den Nachrichten" box on the German main page, which happened last year's May and cost Wikinews two thirds of its reach? (Note that the rebound between the end of June and end of october was mostly the result of my 100wikidays effort, just before I went on hiatus as a measure of protest against the introduction of the uniform code of conduct.)
3. Moreso, is the foundation still commited in growing the sister projects or would the name change only be the lead action into an exit strategy for closing some ore allthe sister projects, which undoubtly play a much smaller if not any role at all in funding the foundation? --Matthiasb (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe it's for the better.

I, like many, was (and remain) indignant at the idea of the Fundation to pulling on the Wikipedia brand to himself. I really hope that Nataliia understood now why this is unacceptable. And that we are still one step away from throwing this conflict on the pages (and screens) of leading world media. Although this "Board Update" is unclear regarding this.

But I was thinking about this. If the "Wikimedia Foundation" becomes a "Wikipedia Foundation" or something about this, this will free up the position in the movement for the creation of an independents "Wikinews Foundation", the "Wikisource Foundation", etc, as part of the movement. This may be better to avoid the "single-foundation-centricity". --Kaganer (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Regardless of the branding, I imagine we probably will eventually end up having major nonprofits for each of the major sister projects. The (quite small) non-profit Wikivoyage Association association already exists, and the affiliate groups for Wikisource and Wiktionary have the potential to become full-fledged organizations that could support the projects in the future. --Yair rand (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Would that not only make sense if the WMF shifted to something like (purely as a placeholder) "Wikiverse Foundation", then there could be separate user groups/full non-profits for the individual projects? There's always going to need to be a single body somewhere, since we can't (or shouldn't) split almost all of the actual support functions the WMF does. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wikivoyage Association decided to dissolve last year, see here. The residual assets have been transfered to Wikimedia Germany [2]. --RJFF (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@RJFF: Huh, that's disappointing. Someone familiar with the context might want to update the Wikivoyage Association page. Is the group going to continue to function without the structure of the formal nonprofit? --Yair rand (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"I also know the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities"

Re "I also know the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities", you should be aware that they have a very good reason to feel intimidated.

If they say the wrong thing when talking with the community, their boss will punish them.

There are zero negative consequences to stonewalling by not responding in any way to questions or concerns voiced by the community.'

You can change this culture from the top if you want to. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename Wikipedia

Hey. I'm a nobody. I don't edit Wikipedia with any great frequency, though I have done so sporadically for 15 years.

The WMF wants this name change. That much is clear. The rank and file volunteers of the Wikipedia project have little say in the matter. That much is clear. So instead of trying to do the hard or impossible (convincing WMF not to go through with something they're already decided on), why not solve this problem with a change we actually have the power to effect: let's rename Wikipedia instead. I don't have any immediately great suggestions for names; I'll leave that to smarter people than myself. Renaming wikipedia would:

• prevent WMF from squatting on our legitimacy
• draw attention to the issue (we'd get plenty of news coverage for "Wikipedia changes its name, here's why", much more than you'd ever see for "Wikimedia's holding charity changes their name to align its brand strategy")
• draw attention to the Foundation itself (front-page news coverage talking about the foundation, even in a likely negatively light as above, would serve their goals of increased visibility)
• probably not drastically impact our searchability. Google is very good at routing around name changes of this sort, so if (silly name for example) Kumquatpedia suddenly had the editor base and activity of Wikipedia, and wikipedia was permanently redirecting there with a 302, it wouldn't take long for us to be as popular as ever on google
• Wikipedia kind of sucks as a name. It's not easily initialized (WP sort of works but is indistinct and inelegant; "double-yoo pee" or "dubya-pee", neither of which are appealing IMO) and both the wiki- prefix and the -pedia suffix are victims of Wikipedia's success.
• To the extent that it reduces traffic, that seems more likely to hurt the WMF than the wikipedia project. Wikipedia is a major source of fundraising for the WMF.

2600:1700:EFA0:2980:40C0:BAC7:107B:5DDF 19:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Wikipedia is literally one of the most valuable brand names in the world—from a purely marketing perspective the WMF would conservatively get more than a billion dollars if the wikipedia.org site ever went on the market—and there would be no conceivable reason to change it and rebuild from scratch. (Why would you think anyone here wants to hurt the WMF? That we disagree with something they're doing, doesn't mean we disagree with their existence; someone needs to maintain the servers and pay the bills.) Besides, what would you suggest as a more obvious name for a wiki-based encyclopedia? Iridescent (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)