Communications/Les marques Wikimedia/Recherche et planification pour 2030/Résumé du projet

Outdated translations are marked like this.

Présentation du projet

Les objectifs de Wikimedia 2030 entrainent le mouvement vers des défis d'ampleur : nous souhaitons atteindre bien plus de gens et les inviter à nous rejoindre, principalement dans les régions ou Wikimedia (ou même Wikipédia) ne sont pas bien connus.

Le branding (l'étude de l'association entre le nom et le logo des projets et la valeur qu'on leur prête) est un outil puissant pour simplifier notre invitation et augmenter la familiarité avec les projets wikimédiens et nos valeurs. Si nous souhaitons faire des projets Wikimedia l'infrastructure essentielle de la connaissance libre, nous devons nous assurer que les gens soient en mesure de reconnaître qui "nous" sommes et quelles sont les connexions entre les différentes parties de notre écosystème.

Approche proposée

Il s'agit d'un projet en deux temps qui a commencé par enquêter sur la position actuelle des marques Wikimedia et qui recherche ensuite comment notre système pourrait s'améliorer pour atteindre les objectifs de 2030. Ce processus a duré six mois, et les résultats amènent des suggestions stratégiques.

Cette recherche visait à répondre aux questions suivantes :

  • Que signifie Wikimedia pour le monde ?
  • Quels projets Wikimedia sont les plus connus et lesquels demeurent peu familiers ?
  • A quel point un internaute moyen connait-il le mouvement Wikimedia ?

Quels ont été les conclusions de l'enquête sur les marques ?

Wikipédia jouit d’une forte notoriété parmi les internautes autour de l’Atlantique Nord

Pays Notoriété
Espagne 89%
États-Unis 87%
Allemagne 85%
Royaume-Uni 81%

La notoriété de Wikipedia est en forte croissance dans les marchés Internet émergents :

Pays Notoriété Notoriété

en 2016

Mexique 53%
Nigéria 48% 27%
Inde 40% 33%

Les projets Wikimedia ne sont pas très connus. Même parmi les projets désignés « à forte notoriété » comme Wikilivres et WikiNews, l’équipe de recherche a découvert que les personnes interrogées assignaient une forte notoriété parce que les noms communs dans les noms des projets les rendaient plus familiers.

Project Awareness
Meta-Wiki 6%
Wikivoyage 8%
Wikispecies 8%
Wikimedia Commons 13%
Wikiversity 14%
Wikidata 20%
MediaWiki 22%
Wiktionary 25%
Wikisource 30%
Wikiquote 32%
Wikibooks 42%*
Wikinews 50%*

*Higher levels of reported awareness of these projects were partly driven by people “recognizing” the common nouns (books, news) and extrapolating the meaning to report they had “heard of these.”

  • Considerable interest in the importance of knowledge materials and the Wikimedia movement’s efforts to make knowledge available. Among Indian, American, German, Egyptian, Nigerian, and Mexican responses:  
    • 92% said they were interested in reading Wikipedia content
    • 84% said they were interested in exploring additional Wikimedia projects
    • 58% said they were interested in contributing content.
  • Study participants said that not fully understanding the Wikipedia content model prevented them from acting on their impulse to share content. Some even felt that the global reach of Wikipedia was intimidating and raised the stakes of adding content.
    • “I think I need more knowledge, because it is something read in every corner of the world so I really don’t want to go wrong in any way,” - Indian survey respondent
  • Recommendation: lead with high-visibility entry point in order to better introduce the world to our range of projects; to better connect with the world’s internet users and show clear connections between movement projects.

What is the proposed brand strategy?

  • Using Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
  • Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.
  • Retaining Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
  • Exploring new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups to use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
  • Considering expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the connections between projects (e.g. “______ — A Wikipedia project”).

The community review process

The approach

  • The Communications team is beginning a three-month long consultation process that will go through May.
  • We will be collecting feedback both online and in person from interested community members. We are specifically looking for feedback that enables us to answer the following questions:
If we move forward with brand changes
→ What are the benefits of the existing proposal?
→ What, concretely, needs modifying from the existing proposal?
If we do not move forward with brand changes
→ What, concretely, are the benefits of staying with the current system?
  • The Communications team will compile comments, concerns, and affiliate stances on the proposed changes into a report for the Board of Trustees. The report will offer a summary of the movement’s reaction and, based on that summary, will offer a recommendation on whether, and if so how, to move forward with the proposal.

Consultations and feedback sharing

We want to make providing constructive feedback as easy as possible for volunteers across different communities, and will be offering consultations in the following formats:

  • Conversations with affiliate groups in small or large group discussions.
  • Conversations with volunteers in virtual group discussions, which can be requested via the email address below.
  • Conversations on the project’s Community review talk page.
  • Conversations via email:

Response KPIs

  • The purpose of this community review is to assess the interest in making this change for our movement. Responses will be collected, assessed, and summarized into a report for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees to review.
  • We are seeking to understand substantive feedback around this proposal. As mentioned in the approach section, we will be paying particular attention to the feedback that enables us to assess:
If we move forward with brand changes
→ What are the benefits of the existing proposal?
→ What, concretely, needs modifying from the existing proposal?
If we do not move forward with brand changes
→ What, concretely, are the benefits of staying with the current system?
  • In general, strong opinions are voiced louder than neutrality. Therefore, we will calculate the ratio of informed to opposed: a measure of the number of people that explicitly oppose the proposal (ideally explaining why the current system works for them/their community) over the number of people who have been informed about the proposal.
    • We will consider the proposal to have strong support if: no more than 20% oppose.
    • We will consider the proposal to have substantial support: if no more than 30% oppose.
    • We will consider the proposal to have moderate support: if no more than 40% oppose.
  • Making a big change requires big support. We will also track the ratio of strong support for the proposal.
    • Benchmark: 20% voice strong support.

Frequently Asked Questions

  • What would this proposal mean for my project/affiliate group’s name?
    • The proposal does not recommend name changes for the projects, except for Wikimedia Commons, which it recommends shortening to Wikicommons to match other project naming conventions.
    • The proposal recommends that movement organizations and affiliate groups (including the Foundation) explore changing their names from Wikimedia to Wikipedia.
  • Would this proposal have implications for my project or affiliate group’s logo?
    • The current proposal does not make recommendations about logos. Changes to logos would only be considered as part of future community consultation processes.
  • What type of support would be provided to affiliate groups in changing their names under this proposal?
    • If the proposed changes are adopted, the Foundation would plan to offer considerable support for affiliates updating their branding. In particular, legal, financial, messaging, design assets, and translation services would be made available. These services will be largely defined by this consultation. In other words, tell us what you would need :)
  • What other branding actions are being considered post-name-change?
    • There are a variety of places in the Wikimedia movement that use branding. Each of these would need to be assessed for possible updates depending on community direction.
    • Branding touchpoints include:
      • Wikimedia users interfaces which could be improved to show clearer connection between projects, driving more visibility, usage, and hopefully contributions, to other projects.
      • Naming conventions would also be developed in order to show how projects connect back to Wikipedia.
      • We could imagine expository taglines, for example, that would describe “Wiktionary” as “a Wikipedia project.”
      • A new visual identity, linking projects together with a unified “Wikipedia” movement mark and style, would also be considered.
  • What would this mean for existing subdomains?
    • If the proposed changes are adopted, subdomains (including email addresses, etc.) would be reviewed and updated to align with new naming conventions. The Foundation would provide support for making these changes.
  • I heard this decision has already been made. Why should I share comments?
    • We are actively trying to assess if this proposal will help our Movement achieve the 2030 goals. Your perspective matters. No choices on this proposal will be made until the community review is complete so please share your thoughts with us via email ( or the Community review talk page.
  • How will you inform people of this proposal?
    • We currently have two outreach plans in action.
      • To inform affiliates (especially organizations that use Wikimedia branding in their identity), we are reaching out directly to group leaders to set up presentations and discussions. We are asking the affiliate leaders to determine how, where, and when they solicit responses from their communities. We are further asking the affiliate organizers to report back on how many people reviewed the proposal (the “informed” number) and what suggestions/concerns/opposition were identified.
      • To inform individual contributors, we are currently using a wide range of mailing lists (including interest and regionally-based lists) and social media groups. When proposal materials are translated, and reviewed with local stakeholders, they will also be shared to village pumps for response. This is an iterative process, so we welcome suggestions for additional approaches for informing around the world.
  • In countries with tense political climates, affiliate groups have relied on the Wikimedia name to distance themselves from Wikipedia. How would these groups be able to distinguish themselves in the future should they need to?
    • We would want to learn from our affiliates what affiliate naming scheme would be most effective. Under the proposal, incorporating Wikipedia into affiliate group names could take different forms, ostensibly some with more and some with fewer qualifications around the term ‘Wikipedia’. Considerations for any proposed change would include the possible risks and benefits of increasing the connection between community groups and the volunteers who author project content. We understand that many volunteers and community groups operate in difficult political environments and we want to ensure that any proposed brand shift supports community safety and legal needs as much as possible. The legal grounding for the separation of affiliate groups and projects would still be in effect, and the Wikimedia Foundation would remain committed to enforcing this distinction.

Additional Resources