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

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

What community input did the chosen unifying concept receive?

The selected unifying concept, "interconnection," was not one of the 23 concepts on which the community had been asked to comment and "like." What community input was requested and received for the "interconnection" concept? EllenCT (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

We have published the report of the work around the unified concept: interconnection. This describes the multiple types of community feedback that went in to generating the concept. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Gibt es irgendwo, bzw,. wird es irgendwo geben, eine ausführliche Darstellung der kompletten Antworten, oder müssen wir uns drauf verlassen, dass die Auswahl derjenigen, die hier ein ganz spezielles Interesse an diesem Projekt haben, passt? Ich persönlich habe wenig Vertrauen in eine Auswahl, die seitens von Snohetta (die haben explizit monetäre Gründe eine POV-Auswahl zu treffen) oder irgendwelchen Angestellten der WMF (die auch schon oft genug ihren Bias unter beweis gestellt haben) zur Verfügung gestellt haben. Außerdem widerspricht es diametral dem Wikigedanken, hier ein klandestine, intransparente Auswahl zu treffen, alles hat offen und transparent zu erfolgen. Die ganzen sehr werbemäßigen, sprich unglaubwürdigen, Videos etc. sind jedenfalls kein Beleg für irgendwas. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Preparing for feedback on the naming convention proposals

Next week, the Movement Brand Project moves into Phase Two: naming convention proposals. This is the most anticipated phase of this project. It will ask the movement to evaluate which proposal(s) best communicate who we are so that billions of new users can understand us and join us. We invite you to attend the live presentation of naming convention proposals on 7 May at 17:00 UTC (Please note: the time was updated). Please use this link to join. This presentation will kick off the two-week feedback period on the proposals, which will run from 7 May to 21 May.

In preparation for the feedback period, we wanted to share some more information about how the feedback process will work:

• There will be multiple naming convention proposals to review. Some will rely on Wikipedia, some will not.
• There will be a concise survey for affiliates, a concise survey for individual contributors, and a discussion space for each proposal on Meta.
• The survey will ask reviewers to rank each proposal against the qualities of good movement branding, generated in last year’s community review. The survey will provide opportunities for elaboration on rankings.
• Survey data will be published and will be anonymous for individual contributors.
• There will be multilingual support for the proposals and the survey.
• From the feedback collected, the team is looking to get a strong signal from affiliates and from individual contributors about which proposal should be refined and carried into the next phases of the project. The team also hopes to get a strong signal on how to refine that proposal. By the same token, the team aims to get definitive feedback about which proposal(s) can be eliminated.
  • The project team is especially keen to learn from affiliates, who use movement branding in their everyday work, and individual contributors who use the movement brand in events, outreach, and other community-building activities.
• This process seeks as much participation as possible. The project team is currently asking about the most effective ways to distribute the survey, including MassMessage, CentralNotice and mailing lists. We welcome everyone’s help promoting the survey across communities.

The Brand Project team will also be collecting feedback from Wikimedia Foundation staff on naming, which will help measure the risks and opportunities of the proposals for Legal, Product, Tech, Fundraising, and Operation activities. The project team will publish details from this review too. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wie wird dieser massive Eingriff in das Wikiversum in sämtlichen Projekten des Wikiversums in einer den jeweiligen Projekten angemessenen Sprache, also nicht nur ein englischer Spam ohne jedes Nachdenken und Aufwand, sondern eine angemessene Mitteilung in mindestens 25-30 Sprachen? Verantwortlich dafür sehe ich alleine diejenigen, die dieses Projekt unter Einsatz von massiven Geldmitteln und Personalaufwand hier weiter betreiben. Da dies bislang vor allem ein Top-Down-Projekt war und ist, ist auch Top alleine für die Informationen verantwortlich, auch für die Angemessene Übersetzung dieser Information, und kann dies nicht einfach an die Community auslagern. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 07:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The announcements distributed will be translated. To which languages exactly, we don't know yet. We are aiming for the best coverage. Some translations will be sourced by the team, and then we will request help from the affiliates and from any translators willing to contribute. The texts of the announcements should be ready for translation by next Monday. The survey itself will be translated as well. These translations are being sourced by the team and we will specify the languages when they are confirmed. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

At least at a high level, this seems reasonable. Some points:

• I'm glad that there are proposals that don't use Wikipedia, as I believe that those are the most likely to satisfy the first criteria for good movement branding and respect the message sent by the RfC.
• I'd suggest that in addition to having a page where each proposal can be discussed, it might make sense to have a page where the set of proposals can be discussed as a whole, as there may be issues that cross-cut the proposals. (For example, someone asking about the criteria.) This could be a new page, this page, or Talk:Brand Network, or even the RfC. If we don't indicate a single page that covers everything, we'll have this scattered in many different places.
• I hope that at least the basic structure of the survey is going to come out before it goes live, so that any problems with the phrasing of the questions can be pointed out. Depending on how the messaging happens, the survey might be the first time many people encounter the branding criteria, and it's probably important to make sure that's communicated well.

• This is especially true if people will be asked to rate specific example usages. "Thank you for supporting the Wikipedia Movement Foundation." isn't confusing, but "The Wikipedia Movement Foundation isn't responsible for the content or policy of the German Wikipedia." likely is. "The Wikipedia Movement Foundation is watching Earth Day Live. Are you?" might bring NPOV into question. We need to make sure the questions asked are representative of how the naming will be used.
• It might make sense to delay the survey by a couple of days, and judge the immediate reaction to the proposals. If the results for some proposals are as one-sided as the RfC was from the start, then it may be a waste of time to present them in the survey. If you have 1,000 people taking 5 minutes each to evaluate a branding proposal, that consumes over 3 days of community time.

• I think a CentralNotice is appropriate, but probably a MassMessage would do more harm than good. Assuming the same pattern we saw from the RfC, you might have an increased absolute number of responses, but after a while most of the responses start saying the same thing. I think the general feeling is that mass messages are a bit intrusive, and cause a negative reaction would bias the results negatively.

TomDotGov (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wichtig ist vor allem auch, das in gar keinem Fall Englisch die einzige Sprache ist, in der kommuniziert wird. Vor dem Beginn der Umfrage muss diese in mindestens 15-25 verschiedenen Sprachen vorliegen, der übliche Anglozentrismus der WMF darf in keinem Fall auch hier passieren. Auch die Vorschläge für den neuen Namen müssen in vielen verschiedenen Sprachen vorliegen, damit auch jedermensch klar ist, um was es in seiner/ihrer Sprache konkret geht.

Ist diese Mindestanforderung an ein internationales und in keinster Weise allein anglophones Projekt gewährleistet? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Almost is important as this is that the survey results get tabulated by language. If "Wikiverse _____" is the proposed branding, and we get 100 English-speakers and 50 German-speakers supporting it, while the 10 Latverian-speakers oppose it because "verse" is an insult to their parentage, we'd want to make sure that the data is granular enough to tease this out. TomDotGov (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Irgenwie wurde noch immer nicht dargestellt, wo und wie hier in anderen Sprachen als Englisch beigetragen werden kann. Imho könnte auch mal ein explizites Verbot der Benutzung von Englisch helfen, den Monolinguisten ein wenig auf die Füße zu helfen. Und natürlich hat alles mindestens zwei bis drei Wochen vor irgendwelchen Diskussionen übersetzt vorzulegen, damit die verschiedenen Communities überhaupt eine Chance haben, sinnvoll teilzunehmen. Ich lese das hier bislang so, dass zu einem bestimmten Datum irgendwas aus dem Hut gezaubert werden soll, dann anschließend ggf. auch m,al was übersetzt wird, aber davon unbeniommen nur mal gerade zwei kurze Wochen zur Diskussion zur Verfügung stehen. Das ist explizit darauf angelegt, möglichst wenig substanzielle Diskussion zuzulassen, denn dazu bräuchte es einen anständigen Zeitrahmen, und bereits vorbereitete valide Übersetzungen in mindestens 20-50 Sprachen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

Important update on timing: Today, we have decided to reschedule the Naming Convention Proposal live presentation and community review planned for 7 - 21 May. While the team is truly excited to talk about names with you, we also believe the most important commitment we made in this phase was to present you the best possible options based on the conversations we’ve had so far. This is why we are rescheduling.

To give some context, the team has heard a good amount of excitement from communities around a “Wiki” naming direction. It's a suggestion often shared based on its wide use in our Movement today. However, during the course of legal review we learned there are significant practical issues with "Wiki" due to the relevant trademark landscape. Rather than eliminating it as an option, we want to take the time to do more research and risk evaluation with our Legal team and the Board to fully understand the opportunities we have and be able to share that information with you.

We recognize that changing timing may appear to avoid a necessary and promised discussion. Nothing could be further from our intentions. We want to enable a lively discussion around the best possible options, and we are working hard to make that happen. The Brand Project team will meet with the Board of Trustees during their 22 May summit, and will follow up as soon as we can after. We look forward to talking about names with you soon. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

So, depending on how you reckon it, this project has been running for about six months - it was approved in last November. Maybe over a year - research and planning started in February 2019. Maybe less, if you follow the official timeline. And during this time the process hasn't been able to produce a naming convention for the movement that the Foundation considered acceptable to present to the community.

Isn't it time to try a different process here? Instead of a brand that is developed in secret and presented to the movement, find a naming convention that comes from the movement. How this should happen is something we could talk about, though I'd think that starting a second RfC might provide a process that has an inherent legitimacy to it. Make the question something like "Should the Wikimedia movement adopt a new naming convention, and if so, what should it be?"

Contributors could speak in their own voices, affiliates could weigh in, and the Foundation could tell us what it finds important, and what it finds unacceptable for legal or other reasons. Debate could happen, ideas could be challenged, discussed, and refined. Fundamentally, we're the movement that gave the world ^{[citation needed]}, and that rejects the sort of 'experts should be listened to' philosophy that has characterized this project to date. A movement-created brand might not be perfect, but it would be authentic, and my understanding is that counts for a lot. It certainly seems like it could accomplish more than we have, while expending a lot less time and money. TomDotGov (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty amazing, considering the WMF has literally blogged about how "wiki" is a generic word 2010, 2016. This is an extremely important part of our messaging in firmly differentiating ourselves from Wikileaks, for example - whose name is because "wiki" is a generic word. Given the WMF's own public messaging on this over the past decade, someone needs to ask how the idea of enclosing the word "wiki" ever made it this far - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to register my opposition towards rebranding as "Wiki". Previous communication posed the question as "Wikimedia" vs "Wikipedia" and I was unaware that "Wiki" was an option that was considered until this week's announcements. As David and others have pointed out, "wiki" is a generic word, which predates Wikipedia and is used more widely than the Wikimedia & aligned communities, and rebranding as "Wiki" would undo much of the public education we've been doing over the past decade and a half. Deryck C. 13:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Einer der Gründe, die vorgeschoben wurden, um diese Umbenennung irgendwie zu pushen, war: "Wir werden mit Wikileaks verwechselt." Inwiefern sollte ein Name wie Wiki dahingehend irgendeine Verbesserung bedeuten? Wiki ist nun mal ein generischer Terminus, der von vielen verwendet wird, und eine Usurpation dieses generischen Terminus würde natürlich sämtliche irgendwie mit dem Wortteil Wiki benamten Entitäten in den Bereich der WMF suggerieren. Was wäre daran hilfreich für wen? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I think it might be helpful if I share how the thinking around “wiki” unfolded. Community members started surfacing wiki-based solutions early on in the process, in many different conversations, for example here. As one of the people in charge of clarifying, synthesizing and reporting back on these discussions from 2019, I remember how these solutions were seriously questioned at the beginning due to the concerns raised in those blog posts. But the ideas kept coming back, which challenged the team to think about them more openly. To see if a wiki-based solution can work, in addition to an in-depth legal review, we are also doing a bit of market research (the results of which will be public) around perceptions of “wiki” to see if associations have changed since 2010/2016.

To be clear, when the team says “‘Wiki’ naming directions”, that does not mean calling everything across the board just “Wiki”–it means thinking creatively about a Wiki-based proposal that can be presented to you for review. What’s at the heart of this is an attempt to put distinct options out there, representing ideas from different sources, for you to evaluate. This speaks to some of Deryck C’s concerns as well.

To get more specific on Deryck C’s process comment, Wikipedia-based naming solutions will be presented during the review, and the team felt it was important to develop and present non-Wikipedia-based ideas as well. See the announcement about the feedback process, which was notified about on Wikimedia-l. The feedback survey and accompanying discussion will allow you to identify concerns with the solutions you find problematic, and endorse solutions you like. If you feel that whatever wiki-based solution is presented is not sound, you will have the opportunity to rate it and state your concerns accordingly.

To TomDotGov’s point, capturing new community ideas is an important element of the survey as well. In thinking more about this early this week, we decided to add an open field for people to suggest their own names, with a commitment that we will look into names/terms that are frequently suggested. This will be communicated more broadly as we gear up again for the survey --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the way this is phrased as capturing ideas points to why this path forward will just repeat the current problems. If you look at the RfC, you can see that the Wiki Foundation name was discussed, and the problems mentioned here were discovered back in March. Instead of capturing ideas, why not free them in an open discussion? Simply collecting names on a survey form prevents the community from commenting on them, while requesting comments on them - in the form of a Request for Comments - means that we'll get a chance to discuss why names are good and bad, and learn from that to generate better ideas.

More specifically, given that the method of having a Foundation-chosen team propose name ideas has failed, what makes you (plural you, as I'm talking to anyone that supports the bespoke process) think that it will succeed when tried again, especially when compared to the processes that have succeeded throughout the movement's history? Why try everything but what works? TomDotGov (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Warum gibt es überhaupt noch Wikipedia-basierte Vorschläge, wo das doch schon komplett durchgefallen ist bei dem wichtigsten Gremium überhaupt, der Community? Wikipedia-basierte Vorschläge dürften die Chance eines Schneeballs in der Hölle haben hier durchzukommen, das würde höchstens mit den nächsten Bistromatik-Sperenzchen seitens derjenigen, die dies ja schon so fabelhaft bei den ersten KPI gemacht haben, irgendwie pro forma zu begründen sein, wenn diese Gründe auch wieder keinerlei Prüfung standhalten würden. Das ist doch offensichtlich alles hier nur Windowdressing, um eine Communitybeteiligung vorzutäuschen, auf deren Input ist doch eh von denjenigen, die das hier betreiben keiner interessiert. Jedenfalls nicht in solchen, der nicht aus lautem Jubeln besteht. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 14:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"The Wiki Foundation" has a nice ring to it, and I would love to have it if the WMF and Ward Cunningham don't want it. If either the WMF or Ward decide to use it, I will volunteer my volunteer and CTO skills. EllenCT (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ellen, we could swap the letters around and have the WikiThings Foundation. Not just for wikipedias but lots of wikithings. I can’t wait for all Foundation staffers to have sig's like E.X.Ample (WTF). Cheers! Pelagic (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Italia statement and requests on Wikimedia brand project

The concept of "interconnection" cannot exist without a bond of trust between the parties that should be connected. We believe that the results of the "Wikimedia brand project" will be of fundamental importance for the Wikimedia movement, affiliates and chapters and we believe that the WMF Team dedicated to the project should ensure the maximum transparency, disclosure and dialogue with the community. In these early stages of the process, the community and the affiliates raised many critical voices, not only in regard to the contents of the Wikimedia brand project but also on the process adopted, which was never questioned. This could tragically impact on the “bond of trust” mentioned above.
Wikimedia Italia therefore decided to share some requests for the "phase 2" consultation:

• We ask WMF to encourage as much as possible the participation of the chapters and the community in the process, by sharing all the discussions and details about the online and offline presentations related to the Wikimedia brand project on platforms that are already in use by the community, using Meta as the main coordination point.
• We ask WMF to fully disclose the process of evaluation of naming proposals and the metrics that will be used to identify the final result of the project. In order for the final proposal to be significant, we believe WMF should identify a minimum participation rate (for both the community and the chapters) and a quorum, to consider the result as approved by the movement. We also ask for a full publication of the results of all the surveys conducted, in a disaggregated form.
• We ask WMF to fully evaluate and communicate the impacts that the project will have on the movement and the chapters - with particular reference to the legal ones - as well as to clarify the "opt-in" mechanism envisaged for the final phase.

Many of us, both within chapters and in the community, perceive the Wikimedia brand project as an imposition from above whose results have already been largely pre-determined. We therefore ask the Wikimedia Brand Project Team to really involve the community, by giving clear and motivated answers to these requests.
We invite all affiliates and members of the community who agree with these requests to put their signature at the bottom of this declaration. --Francesca Ussani (WMIT) (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) as Liaison for Wikimedia Italia

• *Applause*. --Yair rand (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Francesca Ussani (WMIT):

Thanks for laying out the things you’d like to see in this process going forward. I can confirm we completely agree on the importance of transparency and dialogue in this process. We also agree that the process needs to build trust in the collective outcomes. Part of building that trust is being completely transparent about what has been decided and what has not been decided so far (see the FAQ for that information). I’ll get specific about the rest by addressing your bullets:

• Meta is a main hub for discussion and the place for project documentation. On the Resources subpage, you can find reports on every community feedback opportunity so far. These reports summarize themes of discussion, any outcomes, and how those outcomes will feed into the process. You will also find presentations, videos and external resources, and documents sent to the Affiliate Liaisons. We also share every update and invitation here on the project talk page. Encouraging the most participation possible also involves going where communities are to send updates and invitations. This means we also use email, Facebook, and videoconferencing, and other platforms to maintain contact and answer questions.
• As you’ll see in the explanation of the feedback process, which was also sent via email to the Liaisons, we are committed to publishing the results of the survey, along with a report synthesizing them, so that anyone can review the raw data. We are also committed to sharing our response goals in advance of outreach. Setting these goals in advance will help us determine if we’ve reached enough affiliates and individual contributors to constitute a good sample. From the feedback, we hope to get a strong signal about which proposal(s) can be eliminated, and which should be carried on for further refinement. We are committed to showing how feedback was analyzed and how it guided the outcomes.
• Evaluating and sharing information about legal risks is a fundamental commitment of the project. It was established as one of the 6 qualities of good movement branding generated by the community in 2019, and we remain committed to it. All proposals will come with an initial legal analysis to help support your discussions. The survey will ask you specifically to identify any additional legal concerns for consideration. The identified potential legal risks, as well as possible ways to mitigate them, will be investigated. In terms of the opt-in system, you can find details in the FAQ. Although adoption is technically after the life of this project, the team is already investigating the type of legal and financial support the Foundation could provide to facilitate adoption.

I hope that addresses the bulk of your concerns. Happy to elaborate more if needed. Thanks again for your thoughts on the process. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Die allererste Äußerung zum Thema überhaupt seit Anfang März diesen Jahres an der wichtigsten Stelle für solche Diskussionen, hier auf Meta, ich nenne das Arbeitsverweigerung. Wirst Du Dich künftig aktiver an dem Prozess beteiligen oder Dich weiter in den Elfenbeinturm zurückziehen? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer @ZMcCune (WMF):. There are a couple more issues we would like to ask/clarify:

• Could you please elaborate more on the metrics you will use to evaluate the following phases? We think that it would be great to have them published at least one week before the presentation of the naming proposals, and also to accept some input and feedback on them from the community: when will the metrics be published? Will the community have the possibility to review them?
• We would like to know something more about how the opt-in process should work for the projects: will there be an opt-in for them as well? For example could it.wikisource or it.wikiquote decide that they do not want to change their names? --Atropine (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC) (I am the other WMI delegate)

Thanks for the follow-up, Atropine. In terms of metrics: the top priority is to ensure as broad a reach as possible with individual contributors, affiliates, and Foundation departments. We are working on metrics that will allow us to evaluate reach and response and are aiming to get those out next week for review. We have also had requests to publish the draft survey questions, and we are working to make that happen next week as well.

No changes are being proposed to the names of the projects, or to the logos or other branding of the projects. See the scope FAQ and the Project Objectives. There will be a “tagline” element for review that can be used across affiliates, projects, campaigns, contests, and more that will communicate how they are “part of the movement.” The team will be presenting those on 16 June.

Please let me know if there’s anything else I can clarify. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is branding seen as important? And questions about the RfC

More questions, some of them might've already been answered somewhere (where? And I mean really answered not using empty words like it was done in the rfc discussions):

• Why is branding seen as important? How does it benefit the projects like Wikipedia, its authors and readers if the foundation's name is well known? How does my grandmother benefit if she has heard of the foundation but is in no way connected with it or the projects? What kind of tangible positive result do you expect? And why is it impossible to achieve without rebranding?
• Did you already made your decission before this RFC was started?
  • If not: Was already money spent for rebranding, e.g. on external consultants? If so: why? How much?
  • Will you honor the outcome of the aforementioned RFC? If not: How do expect and plan the relationship with the community to develop in the future?

--StYxXx (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@StYxXx: These are good questions, thanks for raising them.

In terms of your questions around the purpose and scope of the Brand Project:

Let me first just clarify that this is not just a project about renaming the Foundation. The scope is broader. The Brand Project is about better communicating who we are as a movement. While Wikipedia is highly recognized, most people aren’t aware of the entire movement of projects, affiliates, and volunteers that surround it. Our movement is making important contributions to the world every day, but many people don’t know about it, and therefore aren’t participating (we’re missing out on millions of readers, editors, donors, partners, etc.) The Brand Project aims to develop a brand that better unites and explains the entire movement/ecosystem. These proposals will apply to not only the Foundation, but also to the movement and affiliates (no changes to the projects are being proposed, but the proposals will have to work well with the project brands). The goal is to develop a unified, compelling brand that communicates the range of projects and communities in our movement, and how those projects and communities are connected. We know there is a need for a rebrand precisely because most people outside the movement have no idea what Wikimedia is or how it relates to Wikipedia, much less to the other projects and communities that support them.

To your questions about the RfC:

There was not a decision made by the Brand Project team about naming conventions prior to the community-initiated RfC, and there has not yet been a decision made about naming so far. Movement-wide feedback on naming convention proposals is the next step in this process. To see precisely what has been decided and what has not, see the FAQ about that. The project team is taking guidance from all the community-provided feedback, including the RFC, in creating proposals (take a look at the RfC report as well as reports on other feedback). The upcoming phase of the project (naming convention proposals) will provide different naming options for review–as well as a write-in option for people to make their own suggestions–taking into account what we heard in the RfC and at other points. So yes, we are listening, we are reviewing, and we are integrating feedback. We are also moving forward with this project, which is in service of our collective 2030 strategy goals. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Die zweite Antwort ist ganz klar falsch. Es gab eine eindeutige Entscheidung seitens einiger weniger, die diese Projekt massiv vorantreiben, alles in Wikipedia umzubenennen, und zwar als das zentrale Anliegen dieses Unterfangens. Die Folien, mit denen diejenigen, die dies massiv betrieben haben, bis zu diesem RfC agiert haben, zeigen deutlich, dass keine andere Lösung vorgesehen war. Erst dieser starke Gegenwind seitens der Community gegen die Funktionäre hat diese zum Umdenken bewegt, und jetzt wird behauptet, es wäre schon immer ergebnisoffen gewesen. Nichts wäre weiter von der Wahrheit entfernt. Erst dieses RfC zwang die Betreiber dieses Umbenennung dazu, endlich auch mal auf die Community zu hören. Ob dads tatsächlich geschehen wird, ob es tatsächlich ein solches Umdenken gegeben hat, wird sich zeigen, wenn die klandestin und im Verborgenen von einigen wenigen Insidern ausgetüftelten Namensvorschläge endlich das Licht der Öffentlichkeit erblicken. Ich hege da noch einige Zweifel an der Ernsthaftigkeit des Willens, ausnahmsweise mal der Community zuzuhören, aber ich lasse mich gerne positiv überraschen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Again: Why do you lie about the naming conventions? The decision to rename it to Wikipedia was in fact done by the small group of those, who push this here with might, as is absolutely clear with all the presentations that were published up to the first real community consultation with the RfC. Only after the RfC the pushers of the renaming started to remove those presentations from the FAQ etc. and pretended, that it never have happened. And even now they still keep those renaming on the sheet, even have the audacity to include only one proposal, that is a bit in line with the overwhelming RfC-consensus, and stick to their not wanted pre-selection. They simply ignore everything from the community, that doesn't fit their programme, the community is completely irrelevant for any decisions by them. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: You keep accusing the Brand team of lying, even if we have addressed your questions and comments before. We don't tell lies, we don't pretend something didn't happen, we don't ignore the community. The Brand team has answered the questions Is the outcome of this project already predetermined? What precisely has already been decided, what are the open questions, and to what extent can feedback impact the outcome?. In your repetitive comments you keep throwing accusations again and again. In my view all your points have been addressed and yet you keep posting them in every new conversation. If you really want to discuss, collaborate and find solutions, discussing each topic separately until its resolution would be way more effective. Otherwise it feels like obstruction of actual conversation. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Obstruction is the way, that I feel with every comment you make. The FAQ you linked is as well a very whitewashed version of the real history of this renaming enterprise. If you look at the histories of several pages here, how those, that massively push a name change towards WikiPedia, and all those early presentations you and your co-marketeers of that name change did, you will se, that in the early presentations the name change was presented by you as a fact, that was already decided, the name will change from WikiMedia to WikiPedia. That was the leitmotif of each and every post here up to the RfC. Only as you finally realised, that your in-group view was not as much accepted as you obviously thought, you gradually began to change your tone, but not your marketing campaign to your wanted outcome. The private blog brandingwikipedia.org, that was a) not open and transparent, b) named in an extreme provocative and predetermined way and c) promoted so-called workshops, that were stuffed with lots of (WMF)-functionaries, paid marketing people and a few community members as a kind of alibi is everything but community participation. That's just a fake to pretend this, nothing more.

Nearly every paragraph of the FAQ reeks of selective reading of the real history to present the small group of renaming enthusiasts in a better light. All the deceptions and false premises are gilded over by some fluffy language and omissions. This one as well. The only reason, that you and your renaming enthusiastic pals changed your story was the RfC, that made clear, the community doesn't want this renaming. And even now you have the gall,. to include proposals, the build around the rejected WikiPedia naming scheme, I really have no idea, how you can think of this is anything even remotely like "listening to the community" or "community participation", if you ignore the community in such a complete manner. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If we feel we are obstructing each other, as strange as this might sound we have a point of agreement.  :) I'm serious. The brand problem is complex, and the proof is that for more than a decade we are aware of it and yet before this initiative started nobody went as far. Because this project touched people's identities as individual contributors and as community participants, emotions are strong.

I wonder whether we can agree on the following: there is a problem worth exploring, doing nothing is not good enough, "the community" doesn't have one single opinion, the RfC alone doesn't provide an answer, the survey is a useful next step.

About the rest of your comment, you have brought these points before, and as far as I'm aware we have discussed them. If anyone else is interested in any of these points, please bring them up. This Talk page would welcome more quantity and diversity of people and opinions. Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There were already some "surveys", unfortunately for you they didn't come to the conclusion, that anything is wrong with the current branding, and thus your vigour to misuse the name of one project for the maintenance unit WMF doesn't get any traction outside your small echo chamber. The survey run some time ago had no support for the renaming towards WikiPedia within the community, but the small in-group of renaming enthusiasts nevertheless presented the data in a completely misleading way, that suggested something like approval. Whether this was just stupidity or wilful deception remains unclear, AGF tends towards stupidity. But the renamers tried everything to keep this complete bullshit numbers out there, despite their misleading nature, same was with the propaganda material, that said, the decision towards a renaming was already taken, those misleading spread-sheets were defended with tooth and nail. Finally the RfC had a clear and unambiguous message: Don't use WikiPedia for anything but Wikipedia. And yet you still ignore the community and stick to your long rejected naming conventions with WikiPedia in it, and not only one last proposal to save your face, but obviosly all proposals have somehow WikiPedia in it. That's complete neglect of the community, you just don't care about the 10:1 decision by the community, you want to keep your renaming scheme regardless whatever. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: I kind of see you as being in the same boat as Sänger, or perhaps even more so, in terms of repeating your position without doing anything to move things forwards. I thought that at the start of your presence on this project, you brought a new perspective. But as time went on, that perspective seems to have calcified. Insofar as new perspectives have come to this project (Yair, Nemo, and Vermont come to mind, as well as the many people that are still participating on the RfC even to this day), you haven't been responding to their feedback, just repeating points about this project working with the community that have not been expressed by anyone outside of the Foundation. If anything, Sänger at least has the backing of a community process - the RfC - to add some credence to his posts. When members of the Foundation repeat their points, it's without even that to back them up.

I'll put in my perspective, which is that the branding as Wikimedia is not great, but it's not a huge problem. We've created top-ten websites using the Wikimedia branding. Rebranding to use Wikipedia is doing something - but that something is something that makes branding worse. It will increase confusion, as it makes sentences like "The Wikipedia Link Foundation isn't responsible for the content of the English Wikipedia." confusing, which violates the first rule of good movement branding. Doing nothing until a name better than the current name is found is a better option than spending significant resources to rebrand to a worse name.

We're going to have a survey. Right now, the survey design is garbage. It's garbage because it doesn't allow people to express the opinion that the current movement branding is better than any of the choices that are being proposed. That's a position that community has been consistent about throughout this process. This is something that would have turned up in comments on the survey design, but of course the survey is fixed in stone because it was sent to translators before it was set to the community. That's apparently working with the communities.

We will likely get new voices, when that survey is placed on all the Wikis, telling you what I've said here - that the survey is designed poorly. Of course, the survey will capture that one of the three options is less bad that the other two. (Spoiler: It will be the one that uses Wikipedia the least.) We will have lost the opportunity to directly ask the community if they think any of the options better than the status quo, or if we should back up and take this project down a different path.

I think what this project needs are new voices from the Foundation that are willing to listen to the community, and are willing to say "that's a good point" Or "that's not a good point, and this is why..." The problem is that we get into a loop where the Foundation makes a point, it's rebutted as incorrect, and that rebuttal then doesn't get a response. Take my point about survey design - what are we supposed to do about it other than posting here, or editing mainspace to correct it? TomDotGov (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If I think of "survey" in connection with heavily invested (WMF)ers, I always have this disaster in mind, where a survey was held with questions, that were based on wrong assumptions, that was extremely canvassed and biased, to do everything to get a result that supported the wishes of the heavily invested (WMF)er who organised it. As the history of this renaming enterprise includes as well heavily invested (WMF)ers, that seem to bent reality to support their wishes, that organised canvassed workshops and so forth, I'd be quite surprised, if this "survey" would be something really worth taking part. But I'd really like to be surprised in a positive way. The build-in bias, that will maker it less worthy, is of course the neglect of the community in regard of the use of WikiPedia, afaik not a single proposal will respect the clear RfC. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's just bikeshedding, but important to the design community for authentic reasons which escape me at the moment. We should be focusing on the community wishlist facilitation. EllenCT (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention proposal discussions starting 16 June

Following up on the rescheduling of naming:

After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the Board of Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three naming convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.

The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project and reviewed various naming options. They considered legal and financial implications of different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to act as compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing and ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the movement-wide review will revolve around:

• two naming convention proposals centered on Wikipedia
• one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid
• an open response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals. We feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals, while we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas. We are committed to reviewing suggestions made in the open response area.

While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures centered entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially responsible, we were able to find ways in which “Wiki” can be used as part of movement naming. We know there will be questions around this, and look forward to discussing more in detail during the upcoming live presentation.

Join us for the live presentation of the three Naming Convention Proposals on 16 June at 15:00 UTC. We will present the various options that were considered, the risks and rewards of each, and how the process arrived at the three options for review.

As previously planned, the movement-wide review to follow will be multilingual and will rely on surveys for individual contributors, affiliates, and Foundation staff, as well as open discussion on Meta-Wiki, from 16 June to 30 June. The two weeks of feedback will help to remove, refine and recombine elements from the proposals into a single, synthesized proposal.

Looking forward to taking on this phase of the project together. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a justification as to how the first three proposals could satisfy the first principle of good movement branding? In all the time this project has been running, there's never been a proof that it's possible to come up with a naming system that doesn't increase confusion when the name Wikipedia is used for something that is not an encyclopedia. Given that the naming proposals seem to exist at this point, it should be possible to provide an existence proof that a naming scheme exists. Either using one of the names that will be proposed, or a name that was rejected for a reason not related to confusion. TomDotGov (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no "status quo" proposal, so the discussion is a sham. Nemo 20:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There will be an explanation as to how the proposals reduce confusion, both in the live presentation and on the documentation for the proposals. Then it will be up to respondents to determine if they agree, and the survey will ask for this (as described). The open response area in the survey will allow those who believe the status quo is the strongest option to put it forward and explain its merits, so yes, the status quo is an option. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Irgendwo wurde mal gesagt, das Ergebnis des RfC würde in die Vorschläge eingearbeitet, das kann ich nicht mal im Ansatz erkennen, augenscheinlich benutzen alle Vorschläge das klar und eindeutig abgelehnte Wikipedia, zwei sogar ausschließlich. Warum gibt es diese komplette Ignoranz gegenüber der Community seitens der Umbenenner? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll try it once mor in english: The community overwhelmingly rejected any inclusion of WikiPedia in a naming convention, now you obviously completely ignored the community and didn't include even a single proposal without that already discarded word in it. So the small group if rebranding enthusiasts decided to ignore the community completely, why should it bother to engage in this enterprise now, as it seems perfectly clear, that it's just window dressing and the group doesn't care about any community input. How do the renamers justify their complete disdain of the community? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ELappen (WMF) I am eager to see the three proposals, and I hope to contribute to advancing the process. I am particularly interested in the risk and reward analysis you mentioned. A few years ago there were somewhat parallel events where there was comparable level of community opposition. It was called Superprotect. To make a long story short the issue was resolved when the community made it a Board of Trustees election issue. The community fired and replaced all five elected members of the Board of Trustees who then fired and replaced all four appointed members of the Board of Trustees. The Foundation Deputy Director responsible for Superprotect resigned, the Executive Director was gone not long after, and the Foundation completely reversed course to respect the clearly-established community consensus on the issue. I would be eager to see your risk&reward analysis if the Foundation were to adopt any of the Wikipedia-related proposals and this were to become another election issue, if the community were to again replace all elected and appointed Board members and the new Board were to then completely rollback the branding deployment. What would be the level of cost, disruption, and embarrassment resulting from a rebranding deployment&rollback? I expect such a fiasco would receive significant media coverage. I look forward to examining this more deeply during and/or after the live event. Alsee (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting times. I too would like to see a risk/reward analysis. My guess is that someone will be making a nice profit out of this, and will deliver nothing of lasting value. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This rebranding project has been running for how long? Six, twelve months? The Board already decided years ago. And we get two weeks for "consultation"? What message does that send about how much the Foundation values our input? Pelagic (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It says quite a lot. All so-called "community input" up to now, besides the RfC, was in small groups heavily dominated by those, who pressure massive for a change to WikiPedia, and most of it is redacted in some shady back-rooms by the same group with a certain mission. Now there ist some meagre 2 weeks to get real community input vs. the handpicked input up to now, that's just ridiculous. But it's quite telling at the same time. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I will point out CentralNotice/Request/Movement Brand naming proposals, which could probably use more attention. It covers how logged-in users of projects will be messaged about this, and when the survey will take place compared to when the proposals are first announced. TomDotGov (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): Presumably, Legal wrote up an analysis or summary of the issues relating to the use of "Wiki", yeah? When can we expect the document to be posted (assuming there's nothing necessarily confidential there)? --Yair rand (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Yes, Legal has done an analysis of the challenges around Wiki. The issues will be discussed in the presentation on the 16th, and there will be an FAQ posted about it as well. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about the original document, which (assuming there was one) was presumably made available to some of the WMF staff. When will that be available? (Not that I don't trust your colleagues' communication skills in writing an FAQ about it, but I strongly suspect that many of us would have a clearer understanding of the issues if we could see the text straight from Legal. Also, in general, transparency is good.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: I spoke to Legal to get a sense of what will happen beyond the presentation and the FAQs. Legal is currently focused on preparing for 16 June, and is integrating the important points about “wiki” into the presentation to ensure those points reach a large audience. They will also be preparing documentation about “wiki” to be published following the presentation, which I believe is more what you have in mind. While they cannot publish the entire detailed legal analysis as it contains information that is confidential and legally sensitive, they will be publishing what they can. They will also be available to answer follow-up questions on “wiki” on-wiki (sorry couldn’t resist the pun :) ) --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): :)

Understood. Thank you for the information. --Yair rand (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As part of the people against all names based on Wikipedia, I am eager to be solicited for the only one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid. I do not feel included when I have a choice between only one option. Well, I won't be mean, the open response area will be nice to have a dispersed list of suggestion what may need a new loop of legal verification and risk analysis. I am still curious to see how this free space will be seriously reviewed when a lot of those options may have already emerged months ago. I fear it will be a messy conversation. Noé (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Why have you completely disregarded the RfC and only used proposals, that were dismissed already by an 10:1 community consensus? You kicked the community smack in the face with this blatant disregard of the RfC. There is obviously not a single proposal,that doesn't misuse WikiPedia for the foundation, not a single proposal, that respects the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 09:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Bitte umseitig nicht so tun, als hätte das was mit der Community zu tun

Dieses Umbenennungsprojekt ist etwas, das allein von einer kleinen Gruppe WMFer ausgeht, bei dem sog. Communitybeteiligung bislang aus kleinen handverlesenen Gruppen mit garantiertem massiven Übergewicht der WMF und der Werbefuzzies bestand, die augenscheinlich ein massivens Interesse daran hatten, ihr Privatprojekt zu pushen. Jegliche tatsächliche Communitybeteiligung, wie beispielsweise das RfC, haben deutlich gemacht, dass es in der echten Community, außerhalb der Blase der Umbenennenwoller, kein Interesse daran gibt, im Gegenteil. Es sollte umseitig also klar und deutlich dargestellt werden, dass dies ein reines Top-Down-Projekt ist, bei dem die Maßnehmen der vorgeblichen Communitybeteiligung nur Werbemaßnahmen, Windowdressing und Blendwerk waren, ohne das an dem von einem kleinen Grüppchen von Funktionären verfolgten Ziel jemals grundsätzliche Kritik erlaubt war. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think something like that would gain consensus. My hope is that simply removing the statement is something that will stick, as it doesn't impart motive. TomDotGov (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The surveys to affiliates and individual contributors will provide an indication of their interest in discussing branding. Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the RfC (now past 450 participants) make it clear that the community wanted to discuss branding. The question is if the Foundation is going to conduct this survey in a way that lets them hear the message the community is saying. For example, by offering an explicit option that asks if it is acceptable to use Wikipedia in branding, which is the question the community found important. TomDotGov (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Bei der ganzen Pseudo-Communitybeteiligung, die auf dem Privatblog der Umbenennenwoller stattfanden, wurde offensichtlich immer darauf geachtet, dass diejenigen, die das von den Propagandisten der Umbenennung erwünschte Ergebnis produzieren, bestimmend waren. Es gab keine Veranstaltung, beb der die (WMF)er und Werbefuzzies von Snöhätta nicht derart in der Überzahl waren, dass das Ergebnis dieser Veranstaltung nicht schon von vorne herein klar war, die falsche Prämisse, dass eine Umbenennung überhaupt notwendig oder erwünscht war, wurde nie zur Disposition gestellt. Aber nur, wenn diese Möglichkeit tatsächlich bestanden hätte, hätte von echter Communitybeteiligung an der Entscheidungsfindung gesprochen werden können, so ging es nur um ein wenig Input und Ideen für die längst beschlossene Sache. Ob diese Sache vollkommener Unsinn ist, ob hier nur Freiwilligengelder in Privatsäckel umgeleitet wurden, iob sich hier eine kleine abgehobene Gruppe verselbständigt hat, all diese Fragen konnten und durften nie gestellt werden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"works with the communities"

@TomDotGov, Qgil-WMF, and Sänger: Please try to reach some agreement on the sentence rather than reverting back and forth. The current state of affairs is that the WMF expresses its intentions to "work with communities to bridge this gap", and per Qgil's summary "The team has staff members working full time with affiliates and individual contributors through multiple channels and events", while many in the community disagree that it is actually working with the communities given the decisions around the RfC, among other issues. Certainly it shouldn't be too hard to express both of these points simultaneously? --Yair rand (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Das Projekt ist ein Projekt der Foundation, nicht der Community. Alle bisherigen sogenannten Communitybeteiligungen bestanden aus Gruppenarbeiten, bei denen handverlesene TeilnehmerInnen außerhalb des Wikiversums in komischen Hinterzimmern, zusammen mit einer Überzahl an Leuten, die dieses Projekt der WMF vorantreiben wollten und bezahlten Werbefuzzies der norwegischen Werbefirma, nur in die Richtung der von den Projektbetreibern vorgegebenen Umbenennung zu diskutieren hatten,. Das ganze wurde dann in verschlossenen Hinterzimmern von den Werbetreibenden und den Umbenennenwollern undurchsichtig "ausgewertet", damit ja nicht das falsche Ergebnis entsteht. Die einzige echte Communitybeteiligung bisher war das RfC, und das wird versucht von den Projektbetreibern, die eben genau nicht ein Abbild der Community sondern lediglich technische Angestellte sind, zu marginalisieren. Facebook, dieses undurchsichtige Privatblog etc., das ist alles keine echte Communitybeteiligung sondern vorgeschobenes Tun-als-ob. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: Would you object to mentioning the WMF position if it's specifically stated to be the WMF position, without the page taking any position on its validity? --Yair rand (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence reads "The Brand Project works with communities to bridge this gap." and this is accurate. The Brand Network is community. The people participating here are community. The people participating in the RfC is community. The people who will participate in the survey is community. Affiliates are community. The Foundation is community. The Board is community. Samir, Elena, Rupika, Chris, myself... have invested a huge amount of time working with affiliates and individual contributors directly. Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: Look, a lot of that is disputed (notably the definition of "community" to include Affiliates, WMF, Board, etc). How about something along the lines of "The WMF has said that it wants to..."? Or perhaps just mentioning the groups individually, so there's no confusion? --Yair rand (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Where is the dispute? I searched, and as far as I can see Meta doesn't have a definition of "community". It has a definition of Wikimedia movement. For what is worth, right now in English Wikipedia w:Wikimedia community redirects to w:Wikimedia movement, which shows that the terms "community" and "movement" are understood as synonyms. But this is distracting. The point is that this program is working on the creation of a brand for the movement, and for this reason it works with multiple players in this movement. The resulting brand system will be offered to affiliates and the Foundation (the content projects' names and logos are not affected by this project) so it makes sense to work with affiliates and the Foundation as part of our movement. Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: On definitions, we needs words for things, and people within the community tend to use the term "the community" to refer to the unpaid volunteer editors on the various Wikimedia wikis. What do you think of "works with affiliates and the Foundation to..."? --Yair rand (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd sort of question the use of "works with" here. The RfC was open to everyone in the community, from the board of trustees (multiple members participated, as did the group), to affiliates (WMCAT), to individual contributors. The consensus was pretty clear - and now we have the Foundation offering multiple proposals that ignore that consensus. I honestly couldn't think of a way to include that that didn't feel too snarky to be civil, so instead I tried to remove the sentence. TomDotGov (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

While someone may think that this project should work more or differently with communities, the fact is that we are working with communities. Running a survey promoted in all projects and translated to multiple languages is an example of working with communities. About affiliates, they are basically run by "unpaid volunteer editors on the various Wikimedia wikis" so I don't understand why someone would suggest that they don't belong to the community. Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You are working with hand-selected members of the communities, on a private platform in workshops, where you obviously see for a clear majority of (WMF)ers and marketing hired guns, that guarantee the right outcome and no dissent, and as it's all done in shady backrooms, with only filtered outcome, this is no valid community participation, but only a pretense of that to keep the appearance of community participation. And you really have the chutzpah to include anything with WikiPedia in it in the naming proposals, despite it's overwhelming rejection by the community. That's really very telling of your type of "community participation". They may participate, as long as they don't disturb your already made decisions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^{(Reden) 13:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)}

There was a survey run already. That survey had 14% of community members support the proposal, and 20% of affiliates supporting, with 40% of community members opposing. The RfC clarified that opposition, with 90% of the community opposing. And so this project's way of working with them is to ignore that feedback, and present a survey that does not include an explicit way to oppose Wikipedia-based rebranding. You might think that you're working with communities. But there's no consensus that's the case.

Is the right way forwards to put a disputed tag on that sentence? I'm not sure what the right thing to do while waiting for more feedback is, but right now that sentence is peacock language. TomDotGov (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(BK) Das Brand Project ist ein Top-Down-Grüppchen von Funktionären, das mit Beteiligung von Alibi-Communitymitgliedern sein Süppchen kocht. Das Privat-Blog brandingwikipedia.org ist eine völlig undurchsichtige und weit außerhalb des Wikiversums liegende Webseite, auf er Communitybeteiligung simuliert wird, auf sämtlichen sogenannten Workshops gab es nur eine Minderheitsbeteiligung von handverlesenen Communitymitgliedern, und die Richtung war auch von dem Grüppchen Funktionäre und den Werbefuzzies vorgegeben, eine tatsächlich ergebnisoffene Diskussion, bei der auch das komplette Unterfangen in den Orkus geworfen hätte werden können, war nicht vorgesehen. Die tatsächliche Community, nicht die handverlesenen Jubelperser der Umbenennenwoller, hat sich mit 10:1 gegen dieses Unterfangen ausgesprochen, in der einzigen tatsächlichen Communitybeteiligung bislang. Und das Grüppchen Umbenennenwoller erdreistet sich tatsächlich, noch immer Vorschläge anbringen zu wollen, die sich um das abgelehnte Wikipedia drehen, besser kann doch eine Missachtung der Community gar nicht ausgedrückt werden. Das ist allesamt nur eine Pseudobeteiligung, die als Schutzbehauptung dienen soll, mehr nicht.

Ich weiß nicht, warum es der WMF immer so schwer fällt, Projekte, die an der Community vorbei gepusht wurden, und die bei der Community mit Pauken und Trompeten durchfallen, dann zu den Akten zu legen, sondern immer mehr und mehr und mehr Geld in solche toten Pferde zu stecken, schon gar nicht in so etwas komplett Nutzloses wie eine Werbefirma. Wir brauchen die Arche B aus Golgafrincham nicht finanzieren.

Ach ja: Natütlich sind die Angestellten der WMF nicht die Community, und die Werbefuzzies aud Norwegen noch viel weniger. Die Community sind die vielen AutorInnen, die den Inhalt der Projekte erstellen, und auch die unbezahlten Programmierer. Wichtig ist: die unbezahlten Kräfte, nicht die Angestellten. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 00:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

CentralNotice survey should be delayed a week to allow for proper review

I cannot support the CentralNotice banner request until we are given a chance to review the naming proposals themselves, and the status quo is included as an option. There is also no information about banners in any of the languages. This is not a great way to run surveys for our movement, it is inconsistent with what has always been required of the community by the WMF in the past, and delaying it by a week and allowing for proper review of the survey design would greatly help.--Pharos (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of why community review for this type of thing is neeeded: Biased survey introduction.--Pharos (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The survey text is biased, suggestive and includes false statements and is therefore, invalid. See for example:

Our free knowledge projects are created by a global movement. Since 2003, we have used the term "Wikimedia" to refer to this movement. However, after 15 years, the name "Wikimedia" remains unknown and confusing to the outside world. This makes it an ineffective tool for explaining who we are, demonstrating the impact of our work, and inviting new people in. By contrast, Wikipedia is globally-recognized, but it is not widely understood as part of a larger ecosystem of projects and communities. The 2030 Movement Brand Project works with communities to bridge this gap. It uses Wikipedia as a central reference point to communicate who we are as an interconnected, global movement.

• The naming proposals that you'd put forward have not yet been disclosed.
• The text insist and invites people to vote for "Wikipedia" even when it is pretty clear that the real community survey shows that there's absolutely zero community support for such a rename.
• The status quo option is not included. A real survey should include it.
• The text mention that you've worked with the communities when such a thing clearly did not happen.

—MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what the purpose of this "survey" is. If it's a brainstorming session for those who agree with the WMF employees' view on something, that should be expressed clearly. If it's supposed to play some role in the decision on whether to do something, then it's clearly inadequate.

It should be clear that such a survey, whatever the numbers of participants, cannot supersede a proper RfC. Therefore, the existing RfC will continue to be active, and should be given at least equal airtime in the CentralNotice.

I'll note that it's highly unethical to subject thousands of users to Qualtrics, a company which provides no guarantees of privacy and relies on proprietary software. The very use of such a software tends to introduce selection bias, excluding the people who care the most about the traditional Wikimedia values. Nemo 15:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• For the reasons outlined above the banner must not go live.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• This entire proposal does not appear to be proceeding well. I can only speculate that someone at the Foundation has bet his/her career on a specific outcome. -- Llywrch (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• I was notified this discussion via email by Pharos, with whom I have corresponded off-wiki in the past, and possibly briefly IRL at an event or something. I don't expect they have a specific reason to be able to divine my opinion on the matter before hand.

It's...not entirely clear who involved in making this has a background in social science methodology rather than public relations. They're not the same thing. Yes, the opening statement is clearly advocating for one "side". This renders the results meaningless if in favor, and damning if opposed. That's why you don't construct surveys this way. It's not clear why we are evaluating the survey when the survey is incomplete. Assuming this is functioning as some kind of crowd-sourced-quasi-IRB, that's not really how this works. Please come back when you've finished your submission in it's entirety so that we can review it.

Beyond that, it's not clear why this survey, and the time involved in requesting input from volunteer human subjects is justifiable in any scientific sense, when there is already an ongoing RfC with 10 to 1 against renaming at all, and in favor of the status quo. I would like to know who exactly thinks that a fundamentally methodologically flawed and incomplete survey submission somehow overrides the community process that we already have in place to make nearly all of our decision making.

If you're intention is to override a preexisting 10 to 1 consensus because that's what the PR people are telling you do to, then just do it. Don't waste time on a perfunctory and superfluous survey to play lip service to the community. Surveys involving human subjects necessarily entail an opportunity cost, and I see no justification here for that. GMG^talk 14:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Addressing concerns about the Naming survey

Hi. Concerns about the Naming survey have been posted in different places. I’d like to address them here.

As a recap, the 2030 Movement Brand Project has been directed by the Board to deliver a new brand for our movement by Wikipedia’s 20th birthday in January 2021. If approved, the new branding system will be offered to affiliates opt in and it will be used by the Foundation. The wiki project names will not be affected by this project.

This project is about addressing issues that have already been identified with “Wikimedia”. In addition to it being mostly unknown, the term itself does not explain that we are a movement of projects and communities. This has been demonstrated by research, which has also demonstrated that the word “Wikipedia” is globally-known. This project is, and has always been, about developing an alternative to “Wikimedia” to solve this issue, and our direction from the Board is to use “Wikipedia” as a central reference point. The naming survey, therefore, asks respondents to look at several proposals which are the result of a long development process including consultations with various community groups. These proposals have been vetted by the Board and the Legal team.

These proposals are starting points for discussion, not a vote to decide which option wins. This survey is about designing the best alternative possible. . The survey feedback will be used to determine which elements of these proposals should be removed, refined or recombined in order to build one strong proposal. We also offer an option for participants to propose their own alternatives. Because this project is about developing an alternative, keeping the status quo is not presented as an option in the survey. Again, the new brand is opt-in for affiliates, so if Wikimedia works for them, they are free to keep it.

With the understanding of what our parameters are, I’d welcome your suggestions on how we can make our goals clearer, and we will do our best to integrate agreed text modifications as soon as possible. The survey will launch with the Live Presentation on Naming Convention Proposals on Tuesday 16 June at 15:00 UTC. Please keep discussion in Talk pages. When project pages are constantly modified, it creates difficulty for translators and anyone attempting to follow along. The purpose of project pages is to explain the project’s purpose and development; we want to document our work on this community wiki so we can answer FAQs and keep our communities updated without asking them to follow our work on a separate online space for Foundation work.

About the Central Notice banner, we will discuss the details on the request page. This survey is a very important opportunity for everyone to participate in creating the best naming alternative to present to the Board. We count on Central Notice banners to allow as many people to participate as possible, but if the CN admins oppose we will respect their decision and will find alternatives.

- ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The community has already made a decision with 10:1 for explicitly not using the word WikiPedia for anything else but Wikipedia, you are again and again completely ignoring and rejecting any community input that doesn't fit your already made assumptions and (mostly wrong) decision. Why do you pretend to have any interest in community input, while you spit the community in the face with proposals, that include the word WikiPedia? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW: Your lack of any communication with the community speaks as well quite a clear language. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@ZMcCune (WMF): This is not a message that responds to the community's many concerns, both with this survey and the branding process.

The community that created the Wikipedia brand's value has made clear that it does not want the value it has added to that name diluted by having it used for the foundation. (And members of the other projects do not want the value they add diminished.) While certain members of the foundation's staff and board have chosen to ignore this, the movement as a whole has made it clear that this is not something that it considers acceptable. Your role should be to make the Movements's stance clear to the Board and Executive Director, so that they can determine what options fit within the parameters set by the Movement.

The Movement has been part of the Branding Project from the start of it - indeed, it's listed before the Foundation on the Branding Project's page, and has been since that list was created. It's up to the Foundation to achieve consensus as to what these shared project pages should say. There are plenty of ways that this project could move forwards, such as holding an open discussion as to what potential names for the Foundation could be, and it's likely that if the Foundation supported those discussions, they'd proceed faster than a survey that does not contain any options that the community has indicated it would find acceptable.

As to editing the project pages, I'll point out that the Movement is as much a part of this project as the Foundation. Perhaps more so, because the community creates the value for these projects, not the Foundation. I wouldn't find it appropriate to request the Foundation staff to limit their editing to Talk pages, and I think it is is inappropriate for you to request the Movement to similarly limit itself. That being said, if the Foundation was to engage the community on talk pages more, as part of the "wiki process" our founding principles ask for, that might help things move forward. TomDotGov (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• @ZMcCune (WMF): Would you be open to volunteers creating a survey, in consultation with your team, in order to collect the relevant information while avoiding some of the problems the community has pointed out? I imagine we could put something together within a week or so. --Yair rand (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)