Wikimedia brand survey

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The brands (collectively names, logos, domain names) of the Wikimedia Foundation are one of its most important assets. Among them, the "Wikipedia" brand enjoys global recognition and has been ranked as among the most influential brands.[1][2] Indeed, 36% of adult American Internet users consult Wikipedia, according to a Pew Internet study.[3]

This survey is intended to gather data on the perception among members of the Wikimedia community of our current brands, and various potential strategies to monetize, protect or reorganize them.

To participate in this survey, simply edit the relevant sections and sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Please feel free to leave detailed comments on each question. If you do not have an account here on Meta already, you can create one.

Please note that while the answers may inform any decisions the Wikimedia Foundation makes on brands, this survey does not represent a poll or vote. Consider the selection bias alone: some questions will only lead to answers from people with a given mindset. This survey is not phrased to reduce selection bias, but to gather as many thoughtful opinions as possible.

Contents

Current projects[edit]

The following brands are currently in active use by the Wikimedia Foundation:

Brand name Current use
Wikimedia Foundation Non-profit organization operating the wiki projects. Also used to identify chapter organizations and the community as a whole.
MediaWiki Open source software used to run the wiki sites.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia containing more than 7 million articles in 250 languages. Website and brand have global reach.
Wiktionary Dictionary cataloging meanings, synonyms, etymologies and translations.
Wikibooks Collection of free educational textbooks and learning materials.
Wikijunior Part of Wikibooks, aimed to provide content specific to kids.
Wikiquote Collection of quotations structured in numerous ways.
Wikisource Project to provide and translate free source documents, such as public domain texts.
Wikimedia Commons Repository of images, sounds, and videos containing more than 1,500,000 files.
Wikimedia Incubator Used to test possible new Wikimedia projects and new languages for existing projects.
Wikispecies Directory of species data on animalia, plantae, fungi, bacteria, archaea, protista and all other forms of life.
Wikinews News source containing original reporting by citizen journalists from many countries.
Wikiversity Courses, course materials, tests, research. Does not award degrees.
Wikimania Annual real life conference held in varying locations of the world.

The level to which these brands are protected by trademarks, and the respective domain names controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation or its chapters, varies. In addition, many of these names are used in local variants such as "Vikipedio" for the Esperanto Wikipedia or "Wikiştiri" for the Romanian Wikinews. These variants typically enjoy little or no protection.

  • Peter Blaise says: Here are US Trademarks accepted for Registeration under "WikiMedia Foundation":

From http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk

  Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark
1 79032490 [1] WIKIPEDIA
2 79030431 [2] WIKIMANIA
3 79030588 [3] WIKIMEDIA
4 78924269 3239603 WIKIJUNIOR
5 78901985 [4] WIKTIONARY
6 78507349 3087280 WIKINEWS
7 78507335 3087279 MEDIAWIKI
8 78483359 3040722 WIKIPEDIA
9 77051291 3243473 WIKTIONARY
10 77051327 3241221 WIKISOURCE

-- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:57, 31 May 2007

Perception of names[edit]

Do all these project names communicate their intended use? If not, which ones could be improved?[edit]

  • Realistically, MediaWiki is the worst. Ask the average person what it is, and they'll be confused. IMHO, Wikimedia is close, and the "Wikimedia Foundation" is a very nebulous concept. Wikimedia rhyming with Wikipedia, and being an anagram of MediaWiki...ugh. The rest are really pretty good. "Commons" is a pretty dull name, given what it could become. Stevage 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • MediaWiki is too close to Wikimedia, but I don't favor a name change due to the confusion it could introduce. Furthermore, it only matters for a very limited public (those who put up web sites). Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is a problem. "Commons" has no clear meaning; it should probably be called something like "mediatheque". Note that Wikimédia France has a (now dormant) project called Wikitheque... David.Monniaux 08:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Commons, for those unknowing about the project, would be dumbfounded when they found out about what the Commons really does. I think it should named to Mediasource or Wikimultimedia or something that states what the Commons is really about. Zscout370 08:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Commons is probably the least clear about what it is from the name, and (afaik) it doesn't have much name recognition outside of the Wikimedia community (and not universal recognition within). I think the suggested "Mediatheque" would suffer the same problems, at least outside the French-speaking community. The plainest way to state its purpose would probably be "Wikimedia Media Repository", but the repetition of "Media" would almost certianly lead to it being referred to as "Wikimedia Respoitory", a title possibly more befitting of WikiSource (why are the two projects, a repository for text and a repository for other media separate?). A combined project could be named "Wikimedia Resources", "Wikimedia Resource Bank" or "Wikimedia Library" although non of these are perfect. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Commons deals with uploading static media files, the majority of which can be transcluded for use in multiple language wikis (e.g. in several different Wikipedias). Wikisource deals not only with texts in a great many different languages, but also with ongoing work to edit them, translate them, and annotate them. These are not just static, language-neutral files (as are most Commons images). This active multilingual activity requires multiple language communities, each on its own language wiki, a point borne out by the huge success of local Wikisources in many languages since the project's conversion to language domains. Dovi 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think all current names work well, perhaps with an exception of Wikiversity. People may think it really gives some kind of degrees. Perhaps Wikilearning may be better. --Derbeth 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia as a brand is just perfect, in my opinion. So is Wikipedia. They mean what they are. There is a problem with the similarity, but if WM is always used with the Foundation part, I guess some of the confusion could be reduced. MediaWiki definitively should be changed. Wikicode, Wikisyntax, Wikiware, anything but an anagram of Mediawiki! About Commons, I like the Mediatheque suggestion from Thryduulf. In the same line, Wikisource could be changed to Wikitheque too, in my opinion it makes its meaning clearer. Wikibooks is perfect, though it migh get a little confusion with wikisource. but if it is aimed at learning material, why not Wikimanuals, or something? Wikibooks may sound like those collaborative fiction books, i dont know exactly what their name is... I'd also like the Incubator to loose the Wikimedia part (the same for commons), perhaps changing its name to Wikubator or.. whatever =P The others are fine. I just feel some confusion between wikibooks and wikiversity... they're quite similar on scope, at least according to the description above. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • MediaWiki should not be renamed to any of the suggestions listed above. Wikicode, Wikisyntax, etc. all sound like wikis about software. This is the software that powers the wikis, and should therefore definitely not begin with the word wiki. I agree that the name could be better. I also agree that it's probably not a sensible idea to change it at this stage, despite the confusion. I am also unclear as to what extent the foundation owns the software. Is it actually a Wikimedia project, or is it the tool that Wikimedia uses? --HappyDog 12:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think most of the names are basically OK, and here to stay. Unlike others, I'm not even so bothered by "Mediawiki" vs. "Wikimedia." Nevertheless, like Waldir (the comment above this one) I would have liked different names for "Wikisource" and "Wikibooks" to make them clearer and also to prevent confusion between them. Hebrew Wikisource, for instance, is called "Wikitext" locally, a name that is clearer and more accurate in my opinion, and more international too: "text" is used not only in English but in a great many modern languages (without the specific connotation of a course "textbook" in English). Nevertheless, despite these quibbles, since the names of the projects have been chosen by the communities and are already traditions, I think it is very unlikely that they will be changed. Instead, I suggest that efforts be made to protect both the global and local names for these projects. See here (Wikisource) for an example of how information on local names may collected and presented. Dovi 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter Blaise says: whew - now you ask? Change the FOUNDATION name and web site to to FOUNDATION! If the names were respected by the owners, then they might get some respect by the user community, but until MediaWiki.org and WikiMedia.org and MetaWiki and so on clean up and get organized, I don't think there's a chance things will get better. Right now, I get so frustrated trying to find support for MediaWiki (the product) on MediaWiki.org, and being told everything is still on MetaWiki, but also being told that MetaWiki is old and is denigrated by MediaWiki programmers themselves (look at the credits and see who I'm talking about) that I end up leaving and going to Wikipedia.org and Google.com instead to find independent help elsewhere. I think this is a moot point question. Close down or redirect the old sites and force all pages to land on MediaWiki.org for MediaWiki and on WikiMediaFoundataion.org for WikiMediaFoundation (yes, NEVER refer to the Foundation by any abbreviation - always call it the MediaWikiFoundation - oops, I got confused again , the WikiMediaFoundation, of course!) and keep them separate and well disciplined. Look, after a fashion, Satellite Software International, Inc. became WordPerfect Corp - not everyone is savvy enough to name the company ofter their product from day one, like Compaq Computers that was always Compaq Computers. WikiMediaFoundation is going to have to decide if they have any independent life outside of MediaWiki (the product), and if so, then differentiate themselves by name - WikiMediaFOUNDATION. There seems to be no structural hierarchy between Media and Wiki and Meta and Commons and so on - and don't get me started on the uselessness and powerlessness of "categories" ... -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks and Wikisource have confusing names. Wikisource sounds as if it should have soully primary source documents, documents used as references while researching say a history paper, including quotes, statistics from censuses, letters between significant figures, etc. While Wikibooks sounds like it should have all major literary works like poems, ballads, novels, etc. The soul purpose of being a textbook site should be expressed further by renaming it something like 'TextBookWiki' or WikiResources. Sadads 12:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that perhaps "wikibooks" might be a little too broad, although as a regular wikibookian i can tell you that there is very little confusion among editors and even new visitors as to what precisely is allowed on that site. Of course, that may be the result of clear and concise definitions on the subject and not because the branding is particularly clear. If wikibooks absolutely needed to be changed (which I would not even agree to) "Wikitext" would be the most accurate alternative. Wikiversity is a little confusing as well, because it isn't really a "university", but it is organized similarly to a university (departments and classes, etc). Wikinews is not "news about wikis", which it could be misconstrued as. --Whiteknight 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikimedia" is particularly impossible--it only got that name due to its earlier existence--even after a fairly long time here I have to think twice every time I see it.
"Wikibooks" made sense at first, but it no longer does because of the proliferation of e-books, almost all of which are either vanity pamphlets, fiction/poetry, or advanced textbooks--and this is none of them; it's simple textbooks, rather close to some of the trivial individually written "books"--pamphlets really, but even when substantial, is never more than high school level. "WikiSchool" might be the closest. --Sadads, just above me here, has the distinction just right. 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia Foundation is bad. In fact, I try to always call it the WMF so people don't get confused. Something like the Free Content Foundation would be better IMO. Wikipedia and Wikinews are both good. Wikimedia Commons is bad - collides with creative commons, it's long and therefore usually abbreviated to "commons", and the name doesn't really suggest anything. I don't a strong opinion on the rest. Anthony DiPierro
  • Wikibooks is confusing as the word book refers to a medium and not a type of content. –Jérôme 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia Foundation may be confusing because there is no specific Wikimedia project. If the MW Foundation only ran Wikipedia it would probably be called the Wikipedia foundation. In the current situation, a good and simple name may be Wiki Foundation since the word Wiki is common to all Wikimedia Foundation projects' names. However this would lead some people to believe they have invented wikis.–Jérôme 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Commons is one of the more confusing ones. Not only it doesn't sound to what it is related to, but it is a compound mark, Wikimedia Commons, being on a subdomain and seeming weaker. Platonides 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Commons is definitely the weakest name. The word "commons" comes from an abstract term in open source philosophy whose meaning is lost on most ordinary people; it's also confusing with the Creative Commons organization. Indeed the term is designed around the idea of it being a joint resource for the Wikimedia projects, when really it should be (and is already to some extent) so much more, a general media resource, a pure visual/audio encyclopedia. We need to encourage ordinary people to come to the Commons on its own terms, not just a resource for editors of other Wikimedia projects. I would recommend a new name with some variation of "Media" or "Gallery".--Pharos 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikiversity. People may think it really gives some kind of degrees. Perhaps Wikilearning may be better." <-- It takes 10 seconds to tell people that Wikiversity does not confer academic degrees. There is already Wikilearn at Wikibooks, WikiLearn, wikilearn and wikilearning.com. "wikibooks and wikiversity... they're quite similar on scope" <-- Wikibooks hosts books. Wikiversity does not host books. Jimbo made the removal of Wikiversity from Wikibooks official, apparently with the intention that the Wikiversity-related pages at Wikibooks be moved to a new wiki where that content would not be in conflict with the stated mission of Wikibooks and could be in line with his call that we "free the curriculum" and "..... also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively." (source) --JWSurf 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Waldir comments related to Wikisource and Wikibooks names (including theirs suggestions :) ) and with JWSurf related to the Wikiversity. 555 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The only one I feel needs tweaking is wikiversity , I indeed thought that it will be giving online degress until I knew the truth ;)..and yes, imho they communicate well enough..--The Joke النكتة‎ 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This question seems a little tricky (at least by me, since I am not an expert in communication or trade issue). The question is actually a multiple one. It can be read as: "Are the project name we use so famous, that every one that read/hear them know what they are or what we are speaking about?", but it can also be read as "Are the names we are using as project name good enough? Are they self explaining the objective of the project?". As you can understand the question is completely different. Moreover before asking if the names well communicate (by being famous or by being self explanatory) their intended use, we should already well known what their intended use are. From the difficult I have in understanding the precise intended use of some projects and from some sentences I am reading on this page, I should conclude that the intended use of some project are not so clear. I am going to consider specific name now.
    • the name Wikipedia is now know by many people, so that many people understand what we are speaking about when the word wikipedia is used. However this is more because the Wikipedia name and the Wikipedia project are famous (note both of these two things, not just one), and not because the name is self-explaining. At least for me (my native language is Italian), such a name do not make me immediately think to an encyclopedia (even if the suffix is the same), while it would if the name would be something like encyclowiki or encyclopewiki.
    • Wikibooks: well actually I have not even well understood what can be put on this project. It was said that the recipe book was to be removed, because it was not used during school or university lesson, but if this is the reason, what is the difference with wikiversity? Anyway my idea of a book (idea that is confirmed by the first sentences of the article about book on wikipedia) is about a paper book, made by more than one leaf, bound by some way, and I can not see anything like that on that web site (and on any web site, except photos of them). I could understand if wikibooks was used for a project that collect the contains of books (a thing that is done by wikisource instead) -- AnyFile 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia and anagrams confuse me most. What again was the name of the foundation, software, meta-Wiki and Commons? I have to look it up every time I use one of the sites. Wikipedia is an established brand. Wiktionary is hard to remember for international users. It might benefit from a simpler name like Wikiwords? Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikispecies work well, because their names describe the content. Wikiversity was new to me, but "an electronic institution of learning that will be used to test the limits of the wiki model" is within my initial expectations. Wikisource is difficult for international users. Does it refer to "open source software"? Does it refer to journalism or water? A simpler name might be Wikidocs. I also never really understood the difference between Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons. What about scans of original documents with transcripts? Commons or Source? I don't care about the file type, I want to access and reference original documents as primary sources. --Plauz 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I find the Wikimedia/MediaWiki pair a bit difficult as well, but I suppose one is media made through wikis, while the other is the media wikis are made of, so it's at least logical, if tounge-tying. Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikispecies, and Wikiversity are all rather clear, Wikibooks a bit less so, Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons the least intuitive of all. However, even though "Jello" is more intuitive than "Oreo", most (USAian) people know what Oreos are. General Motors actually makes engines (not motors), but everyone knows what they are. Brand recognition is just a matter of time, effort, and exposure.--SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It sounds to me that WikiMedia should have a content of Wikimedia Commons. At the same time I am not understanding what Wikimedia Commons includes. The same is with Wikisource. Source of what? It could be everithing. With Wikisource are conected Wikibooks when it seems to me that ther should be included on Wikibooks everithing, not only textbooks but also that materials, which are currently placed on Wikisource.--Juan de Vojnikov 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. In particular, "Commons" is not very well-named, "Junior" is potentially confusable with the Simple English 'pedia, and the Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Mediawiki triad is confusing. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Generally yes. Wikipedia, wikinews, wikiquote, wiktionary, are all good. MediaWiki is awful - perhaps WikiSoftware instead? Wikimedia could be WikiCentral? WikiSource isn't good either. 84.9.171.30 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They look all right.--Jusjih 08:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that WikiSource and Wikimedia Commons could be improved. Wikisource sounds to me like it's a source code library, and Wikimedia Commons sounds like a meeting place/social networking site. The others are good, though. Cybiko123 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't very clear to people what Wikimedia Commons is just by looking at the name and since the name has very little recognition outside WMF projects it shouldn't be too hard to rename it. It also might make sense to choose a name that can be easily translated\transliterated to other languages without losing its meaning as right now I know of at least one language that calls commons a completely different name (not a translation nor a transliteration). Yonatanh 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • i personally think the nomenclature is basically ok, but can be improved upon; i am always open to suggestions btw. the longer we wait and the further developed projects are, the less good an idea it seems to me to change names however. i discuss below here only those to which i feel a remark is appropriate. oscar 13:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikimedia (Foundation) - imho wikimedia and wikipedia are the best known trademarks and should remain unchanged
    • Wikipedia - imho wikimedia and wikipedia are the best known trademarks and should remain unchanged
    • MediaWiki - confusing perhaps, but so are coke and pepsi if you get to know them
    • Wiktionary - the only really unfortunate name imo, especially since in some languages (such as german) where this sounds even obscene; personally i like the proposed wikiword better
  • Current names are clear, perhaps "Commons" doesn't express so much info about the project. Wiktionary has a british sound, not replicable and uneasy to be translated effectively in other languages. --Frieda 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Commons" does not suggest an image repository, and was slightly confusing to me when I was a new user. Dar-Ape 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes they do generally pretty well. Maybe some less, when improperly localized. This can be dealt with using subtitles, e.g. WM Commons, une mediatheque; Wikibooks - electronically published free text books. It took a while for me to get used to wiki(m/p)edia when typing, as well as to MediaWiki/WikiMedia. Intellectually, it's not too hard to know which is appropriately used when, and were. Yet getting fingers right back under control, when they autmatically are typing along more quickly than brain can keep in touch with … Ouch! That strikes me every now and then, again. This is not a pledge for a change, but for a more alert brain ;-) perhaps. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Many of the names are confusing. Wikispecies, Wikinews and Wikiquote are fine though. Wikipedia can be confusing as it uses the American "edia" rather than the International "aedia" spelling. Searching for "encyclopaedia" brings up many other websites before listing Wikipedia. Wikibooks (although I'm an admin there) is also confusing and many expect that it will host fiction and original research. Wikisource and Wikicommons are very confusing - what's the point in having these as separate entities? I know that commons is used for editing and anotation but it's all very confusing. Wikiversity, again, seems unnecessary and could easily be part of a larger Wikilearning site that includes both Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Wiktionary is confusing for International users and for the fact that it doesn't include the word "wiki" in its name. I'd support a renaming for Wiktionary and Commons in the very least. Xania 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that the current number of unique names is too large, not large enough, or "just right"?[edit]

  • Given that this list was not complete (I have added Wikijunior) it is obvious that there is not even within the Wikimedia Foundation sufficient clarity about its trademarks. GerardM 08:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess Florance cleared this issue up on Foundation-l. Wikijunior is a trademark, even if it was neglected by Eric. More to the point, this question doesn't make sense unless the foundation is suggesting here that no more sister projects will ever be created. Period. Or that somehow the only project worth concern is Wikipedia alone and the rest should be "spun off" to other foundations/organizing groups. Perhaps that is an option, and it would have its own consequences. --Roberth 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly too many. Possibly merging Wikisource and Commons into one (as above) would help, but I think the strongest candidates for merging are Wikibooks, Wikijunior and Wikiversity. I suggest that the latter two be rebranded as Wikibooks Junior and Wikibooks University respectively, strengthening the Wikibooks brand and allowing further sub-projects, Wikibooks Young Adults as an off-the-top-of-my-head example. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm confused, I thought wikijunior was already part of wikibooks? At least it is in the English version, I'm not sure about other languages. I like the YA idea though. Mattb112885 12:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that it's ok. --Derbeth 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The correct number of unique project names is the number of projects. The correct number of unique foundation names is the number of foundations. Is this really that hard to grasp? -- Cimon Avaro 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess I agree again with Thryduulf. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As do I. --HappyDog 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter Blaise says: The problem is not the merely the number of namesm but also the lack of clear differentiation between them, and the lack of unambiguous meaning to those names, and the lack of clear hierarchy and functional differentiation between what the names refer to. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebranding Wikijunior to be "Wikibooks Junior" would be acceptable because wikijunior is for writing books for children, and is not a general-purpose wiki for children. For instance, in wikijunior people do not write encyclopedia articles or news stories or store original source texts etc. Wikiversity is simply not wikibooks, and the two should not be smashed [back] together. Wikibooks and Wikisource might make good merger candidates because there already is some blur to the lines between those projects. For example in the past people have donated entire books to wikibooks, although books that have been donated in that way are typically open to modification, while an original source text likely should not be modified. A merger between wikibooks and wikisource would also create a relatively large projects out of two smaller projects, and might help both receive a little name recognition. --Whiteknight 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I find this comment very strange. There is hardly any overlap between the two projects, and there have certainly never been any serious disagreements about what belongs where. The definitions of the projects as for previously published works of all kinds (Wikisource) versus the wiki-creation from scratch of study guides and course textbooks (Wikibooks) is very clear, and leaves little or no overlap to merge. That being said, one can quibble with their names. Dovi 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a loaded question. Either that, or it's not detailed enough. Anthony DiPierro
    • Most of the questions are loaded. I would like to know where the repliants are most active. Hillgentleman 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikibooks, Wikijunior and Wikiversity. I suggest that the latter two be rebranded as Wikibooks Junior and Wikibooks University respectively, strengthening the Wikibooks brand and allowing further sub-projects" <-- I see we are "thinking outside of the box" to find ways to build upon the fact that the Wikiversity project does not host books. This proposal, as described above, is far too modest and would only disrupt two Wikimedia sister projects; it cries out for more complete elaboration. For the full desired effect we must bite the bullet and rebrand Wikipedia as "Wikibooks' encyclopedia". We can also strengthen the Wikinews brand by requiring that all edits about events less than one month old take place within the Wikinews project. Ultimately, the "Wikibooks' encyclopedia" will have to be subdivided into its major sub-projects such as "Encyclopedia of Pop Culture", "Pimp my Non-notable Biography" and "Free Advertising for of Non-notable Schools and Businesses". For complete effectiveness of this plan, we must be ready to immediately rebrand sub-projects each time a new member of the Board of Trustees gets bored is elected or when new Alexa website rankings are released. --JWSurf 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Way too many. I'd differentiate between brands and projects. Basically there's only one brand: Wikipedia. I doubt strongely that any of the other projects has noticable brand recognition outside their communities.
Wikipedia has the reputation of a free, up-to-date and reliable reference. I don't know why so many readers trust anonymously generated content, but they do.
So we should focus on the core "Wikipedia projects" that support this brand recognition. In particular: Wikisource/Wikimedia Commons, Wikitionary, possibly Wikiquote. From a branding point of view, it might make sense to call them Wikipedia Sources, Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Quotes, Wikipedia Species, Wikipedia News, Wikipedia Books. These projects complement each other nicely. There should be as little overlap in content as possible between these core projects. I'd merge Wikisource and Commons into one.
The other non-Wikipedia projects aren't primarily reference works. They happen to use Wikimedia Foundations licenses, servers and software. But their content is mostly independent from Wikipedia projects. They don't depend on Wikipedia, Wikipedia doesn't depend on them. So I'd make sure that these projects are not confused with Wikipedia! They need their own branding!
Wikijuniors is a great example for a possible non-Wikipedia brand. When I hear the name, I expected content for (and by?) kids. I don't care if these are only books or also discussions, learning materials, selected encyclopedic articles. This brand is targeted at a specific audience, not at a content type. :-) If it makes sense to have such a project, I don't know. Portal pages in Wikipedia and Wikibooks might serve the intended purpose better.
Experimental projects like Wikiversity are just that, experiments. They shouldn't dilute the Wikipedia brand. Unless it's clear how they relate to Wikipedias other reference work, I'd rather not call them Wikipedia.
What it boils down to: I think of "Wikipedia" as content, not as technology. What's now Wikimedia Foundation should eventually be split in two organisation. One, "Wikipedia" would work more like a publishing company. They are responsible for the content. They have the lawyers to keep free Wikipedia content free. The other, "Wikimedia" would work more like a software company. They'd promote the use of Wikis and provide hosting services for the current Wikimedia projects. That'd be just two brands.--Plauz 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Plauz's rationale of "Wikipedia X" for everything established, while it may have some merit, strikes me as extending the stranglehold influence Wikipedia already has on the other projects. (After all these years and growing efforts to move WP support material in Meta, Mediawiki.org, Commons, etc., we still rely far too much on cross-project information embedded in WP.) I prefer staying with simple and clear names. There's nothing ambiguous about "Wikiquote", for instance. We already have enough confusion on other projects when people incorrectly say "Wikipedia" out of habit when they mean the current non-WP project; how much more prevalent will this confusion be if all the projects start with "Wikipedia"? Even when not in error, when someone says "Wikipedia", will they mean the flagship product, the umbrella project collection, or the trademark? When did we become Microsoft? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Jeffq's comment above. Wikipedia has some serious bad points in respect to it's culture, and putting all other projects under Wikipedia's heavily rule-laden umbrella will stifle if not smother the other projects. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Plauz: "I think of "Wikipedia" as content, not as technology. What's now Wikimedia Foundation should eventually be split in two organisation. One, "Wikipedia" would work more like a publishing company. They are responsible for the content. They have the lawyers to keep free Wikipedia content free. The other, "Wikimedia" would work more like a software company. " <----The content is what Wikimedia Foundation is for (wikimedia:misssion statement). Developing mediawiki technology is part of how the mission is to be achieved. They are not seperated. The split will cause problems: 1. How do you propose to split the responsibilites? Who would be responsible for the servers, administration, opening of new projects, steward elections, etc? Is one organisation subordinate to the other? 2. The development of the mediawiki benefits from feedback from the users. Such a split produces an unnecessary barrier. Hillgentleman08:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And then, Plauz, "Way too many" for whom? For the board? For the marketing folks? Or for you to comprehend only? Or for a member of the general public? Hillgentleman 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think its OK. And I will not dig in the number of project is low or high. But I have one q: Who can have a q like this? It is someone from the Wikimedia Froundation or someone who is supporting more projects together. So he is unhappy that only Wikipedia is well know and other projects are not so much known or known to a thick range of users. I think that here is important that people know about the project and they use it. English Wikipedia is well know for the amount of articles, thats why is used worldwide. The interest of people helps a lot to the project and it supports its development. I think we need here kind of competition between projects for the popularity. The actual situation is that other projects are a little bit beaten by Wikipedia, but it will change (if they will be gladly supported).--Juan de Vojnikov 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Too many. There seems little reason why Wikijunior isn't simply called Wikibooks:Junior or something, or why the Incubator is even considered separately in the list. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Too many. The problem for me is that wikipedia's content policies are too restrictive. wikipedia contains news - wikinews is a (poor) attempt to get round issues about OR. Likewise wikisource, wikiquote and wikispecies. In my view wikipedia, wikisource, wikiquote, wiktionary and wikispecies could all be brought together in a single project. 84.9.171.30 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a problem — Each project needs its own unique name, if projects are merged, less unique names are needed, or if more projects are created, more unique names are needed. I think merging projects together, as other people have suggested might be a good idea though. The resulting project's mission, scope and policies would IMO need to be updated. I think encyclopedias, quotes, species, dictionaries, thesauruses and source all involve some sort of book, and could all be merged with Wikibooks as individual books. Even though Wikiversity doesn't offer degrees, universities often offer local news and have books for their courses, making some sense to merge Wikibooks and Wikinews into Wikiversity. Wikimedia Incubator could become part of Wikiversity which has beta.wikiversity.org and could be used for testing out new ideas and languages for Wikiversity. Wikimedia Commons could become Wikiversity Media at media.wikiversity.org. Wikimedia Foundation could be renamed MediaWiki Foundation to reflect the name of the software and reduce any confusion over what the differences are between Wikimedia and MediaWiki. So in the end I think there would be only a need to protect MediaWiki, MediaWiki Foundation, Wikiversity, and maybe Wikiversity Media and Wikiversity News. Whether this would be better or worse then "Wikipedia X" is hard to say. I don't think it makes sense to propose renaming projects just because Wikipedia is more popular and has a stronger branding. Wikipedia is associated with Encyclopedia and, something like Wikipedia Learning suggests to me learning about encyclopedias or learning to use Wikipedia rather then what Wikiversity currently is for. Wikipedia Dictionary suggests to me uncommon terms people would find in an encyclopedia, rather then a complete dictionary as Wiktionary tries to be. Wikipedia Books, suggest to me books that talk about encyclopedias rather then textbooks on all sorts of subjects as Wikibooks tries to be, etc. This could be a problem with the Wikiversity approach as well, which is why this is more of a demonstrations of an alternative approach, rather than a serious suggestion. --Darklama 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that there are too many unique names. You could perhaps merge Wikiversity, Wikibooks, and Wikisource could be merged. The others are different enough that they can stay separate. Cybiko123 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • i have no problem with many names, but imho the central trademark wikimedia should be more prominently present, also visually. there is a serious drawback in the fact that each separate trademark simply costs (more) money to acquire and keep. oscar 13:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikisaurus is a project within Wiktionary that should be recognised and protected. Ricahrdb of Wikisaurus. (MY current log in of WikiMedia seems to be being reneweed by email !)
  • Speaking of "number of unique names" they're ok. IMHO we should think of merging project only if their purposes are overlapping not just to reduce number of names. Frieda 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Never thought of it. There are as many names as there are projects. What to do about it? It's a necessity. From a marketing standpoint, yes, they are probably too many. It's bewildering at first sight, and creates ingroup/outsider feelings. The 'lot of names' should be communitated more sparesely. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Logos[edit]

Do all current project logos communicate their intended use? If not, which ones could be improved?[edit]

  • The Wiktionary logo looks a bit out of place. As does the Wikipedia one, but that's so well-known, it's ok. The rest have a certain consistency to them, though the Wikinews one doesn't stand out enough as an actual logo for something. It looks more like an icon. Stevage 07:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikisource logo makes hard to tell, what it is really about, but I find it nice anyway. --Derbeth 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wikisource logo doesn't say much to me. The Wiktionary one is ugly, but I doubt I could come up with something clearer. And the symbol above the signature on wikiquote would better be something like Quote.png, in my opinion. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikisource and Wikipedia are the two most confusing logos, although wikipedia has enough recognition that the logo doesn't need to be changed to reflect the project. Wikiquote, also is a little confusing because the generalized "sound wave" logo makes it look like a repository for sound clips (similar to commons), and not a collection of written quotations. --Whiteknight 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Some sort of phylogenetic tree might be a more obvious logo for Wikispecies than the double helix. --Tgr 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the Wikipedia logo really shows the signs of being designed by a committee. It has to be a perfect sphere, it has to represent every known writing system (yes, that's a slight exxageration) etc; this is an overtechnical approach. It has achieved some status in the world at large, but it could have more of a personality (and help sell more t-shirts and all) if we revamped it somehow while still keeping it recognizable as the Wikipedia logo.--Pharos 03:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • All Wikimedia logos sounds good to me, except the Wikisource logo. The reason is obvious: is the only project that don't have a logo related to your content :( 555 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikisource logo is definitively ununderstandable. I do not like the Meta / WikiMedia logo too (even if I read its meaning some time ago, I even do not remember it). -- AnyFile 10:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary is about words, so why the logo consist of letters. Thats a little bit confusing. And also dont understand the logo of Wikimedia Commons, while Wikiversity could have a better one (note: this user supports Wikiversity).--Juan de Vojnikov 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm rather indifferent to the logos, they're not really "catchy". Except for the main WP logo, of course. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They're all a bit boring I think. 84.9.171.30 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • --oscar 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) -- this is in my opinion a very confusing part: there is no coherent underlying vision in the visible here: the logos are too diverse. i think it needs some serious designwork to bring them together into one whole, in such a way that any of the logos or a new will be immediately recognized as a derivative: another wikimedia-project. having some experience with this, my take on it would be to:
    1. define the palette (4 colours, a particular red a particular green and a particular blue, next to a particular gray (but not these of course).
    2. define the format (i propose it to always be in the shape of a circle and with some certain basic proportions)
    3. define the font and the font properties
  • Wikisource's is terrible. Wikibooks looks bad in small (as in Wikibooks-logo-en.png(. Wikinews is a different shape to the others. Wiktionary's full-size one, I hate to say, is the worst of the bunch: even the favicon version (can't find a link) is not excellent. en:w:This, that and the other 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't feel Wikibooks one fits with our corporate identity. It has a look very different from the others. Frieda 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am against modern logo-ism. We are on the way to re-invent chinese writing using logos. You cannot communicate intended use in 16 by 16 pixels, so don't try it. You can to some extent make them distinguishable - which WMF fails by reusing 1 or 2 favicons for almost everything and using some logos which are not iconiseable. That could use some straighening, but is generally unimportant to me. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we strive for more consistency in the design of the logos (e.g. Wikimedia colors), or more diversity?[edit]

  • Somewhat of a consistancy on colors, but make them unique on design to meet the needs. Zscout370 08:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just make up your mind about what the intention is here. If the goal is to show a common brand strategy, then don't torpedo efforts such as the suggested Wikibooks logo for being too similar in color to the WMF logo. If the idea is to force brand independence, keep the current policy about logos that explicitly demands that the color scheme be completely dissimilar to other project logos and icons. --Roberth 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is my strong feeling that Wikimedia projects should have some kind of shared branding, by using the Wikimedia colours as a basis. However the board seems to disagree with this, and in fact has made proclamations to this effect so late in the process of choosing one logo that the process has been stalled for 7 months, despite the fact that the logo has been chosen and agreed upon! The foundation needs to make a decision: either they don't care whether the logos indicate that the project is a WMF project, or they do. If they do then perhaps a rethink about colours is required... --HappyDog 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Making logos more consistent would require either (a) all projects changing their logo to look more like wikipedia's or (b) wikipedia having to change it's logo to be more like the WMF logo. If we exempted wikipedia from the re-logo-ing process, it would make good sense for a single artistic entity (perhaps with feedback from the communities) to create a consistent logo set for the rest of the projects. --Whiteknight 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think having logos with some visual relationship (colors and/or design) with the WMF logo would be a good thing (even at the cost of redoing the Wikipedia logo). The Wikimedia and Commons logos are the best designs we have (and the MediaWiki logo is nice, and appropriately distinct from the others). During the last round of logo designing, some of the other projects also had a few nice designs that drew from the WMF logo.--Ragesoss 17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe that the Wikimedia projects should strive to convey their originality and uniqueness in their logos. Re-using the colors and geometrics of the wikimedia logo ad nauseam is not bringing anything for the individual projects . notafish }<';> 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Diversity is not imposed from the top. If you want true diversity, let the communities decide upon their own logos. Hillgentleman 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So far as I can see, virtually all the complaints about the logos are from wikimedians who are not even mildly active in the specific projects. Hillgentleman 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I second Roberth. Right now the Foundation, Incubator, Wikispecies and (to a lesser extent) Commons use the WMF color scheme. Not much logic in that. --Tgr 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the "Wikimedia colors" are meaningful at this point to anyone but a tiny group of Wikimedians. That said, it would a very good thing to have a family of similar logos. Only we really shouldn't feel constrained by the existing "Wikimedia colors". It might be a good idea to restart things from a blank canvas for most of the projects.--Pharos 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, we people in Europe love diversity.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Similarly, since they're all part of the same scheme. Start with the Wikipedia Orb and change the texture per project? Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the individual communities of each language project should be able to decide among themselves what to use, whether or not its consistent with other projects or languages. I think its the wiki way. --Darklama 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that it would be good to let the individual projects decide their color schemes. Cybiko123 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • yes, see my remark just above. i believe in unity in diversity here. oscar 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There should be some element of the logos that is consistent and recognisbale, be that colours or some element. The 'wiki way' is not to have everyone do their own thing, it is to work together to produce a work of consistent excellence. Richrdb of Wiktionary.
  • Diversity is ok, but they must have the same "family feeling". Frieda 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The logos should have stronger commonalities. As oscar mentioned in the previous section, the color palettes are not unified, but should be. Also, some of the logos have a 3-D feel while others are completely flat. Furthermore, the content of the logos varies dramatically-- the Wikimedia Foundation logo is completely abstract; the Wikibooks logo is literal; the Source logo is conceptual; Wikiquote is iconic, and the Wikispecies logo is a combination of of literal and conceptual. Some effort should be made to unify how the logo reflects the project. Dar-Ape 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Likely both, but imho this is greatly overvalued in discussions. Making content better is much more important than striving in attempted logo enhancements. We are certainly beyound the point where agreed upon enhancements are possible - arbitrary changes will be favoured and disliked by approximate equal numbers. Call it the usual 10% of the project that are so hard to finish that they will be never done ;-) and do something more useful. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing[edit]

Should the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters license the project brands to makers of games, gadgets, toys, etc.?[edit]

Brand licensing, especially of a household name like Wikipedia, is a potential source of revenue. Licensing agencies have approached the Wikimedia Foundation and offered to assist in marketing its brands to prospective licensees (under criteria defined by the WMF, including business ethics, product categories, etc.). Given such a framework, should the WMF pursue such a licensing strategy as an additional source of revenue to support operation of the websites and programs, provided that these products are not advertised through its websites in any way?

  • I don't see any major harm, but again, don't overdo it. Do it with companies that you want to encourage/support, and make sure we get enough back in return. Stevage 07:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My response to this is a very cautious "yes, but only if done carefully". If the names become overused or associated with irrelevant things then the brands become less valuable. For example a quiz game based on Wikipedia would have value, a Wikibooks tin opener wouldn't. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This may be a dumb question, but the brands aren't going to be licensed under the GFDL are they? What's the difference between licensing the brand and licensing the content under that brand? Mattb112885 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter Blaise says: WikiMedia CHAPTERS? Yet another WikiMedia name.category/dimension to keep track of?!? AAAaaaarrrggghhhhhhh!-- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thryduulf, we don't need any wikiversity action figures, or wikibooks lego castles or anything like that. However, look at the success that firefox has had from it's relationship with google. Imagine having wikibooks be searchable from Google Books, or even from Amazon? Any money that would come in from those joint efforts would help bolster our fund raising. --Whiteknight
  • under no circumstances whatsoever there are enough problems with commercialism sneaking into WP as it is, and maintaining the distinction between us and similar projecs. how would we maintain the standards of the article about them? 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Haven't Wikimedia Foundation "brands" and trademarks been licensed under GFDL and as such are free for anyone to use as long as they conform to GFDL? That is, isn't the Foundation claiming it has rights that simply don't exist under GFDL?--Chrisbak 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No. The Foundation holds the copyrights for logos (and they are not GFDL) and has registered the trademarks.--Ragesoss 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected - the Foundation clearly owns the trademarks. However wasn't the value of that trademark created almost entirely by editors creating GFDL content? What exactly did the Foundation do to deserve such a valuable brand? Also what would happen if the Free Software Foundation tried to brand "free software"?
        • Editors made content under these trademarks valuable. The Foundation is responsible for keeping them and maintain their spirit. Now, WMF is asking here the editos the police to follow with them.
  • I think some cautious moves in this direction would be good. I could imagine a line of Wikipedia clothing, with slightly sarcastic/ironic catchphrases (e.g., "Everything I know I learned from Wikipedia") would do well at retail chains like Hot Topic and would not be detrimental to the brand if done carefully.--Ragesoss 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with those above: Yes, for a significant return, but do it carefully.Dovi 19:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not unless it's going to be under a free license available to everyone. Anthony DiPierro
  • Yes, if that's related. It's ok seeing that a doll's book, is a hardcopy of Wikipedia. :-) However, a Wikipedia action toy is over-using the brand, as tehre is no relationship. Note: if they get licensed, make sure to get some free images of the object. Platonides 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "we don't need any wikiversity action figures" <-- Don't forget the anatomically correct Jimmy and Florence dolls that we will need for our sex education class. The$e will surely be popular item$ via Cafe Press. --JWSurf 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think this is a valuable way to raise funds. I doubt we'll get many offers for action figures in any case (though we should consider everything on an individual basis).--Pharos 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If the logo is used on some daily necessities, such as food utensils, or dolls, I think it is okay, but no luxury goods, as the logo is used for raising money instead of a brand name. Chanueting 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. The potential side-effects on internal politics and external perception outweigh potential financial benefits. Wikipedia is different than regular companies. We shouldn't blur the line. I can see that Wikipedia sells its own line of products (T-Shirts, caps, ...), but supporting third parties with our brand? No. I'm trying to think of a licensee that all Wikipedians could accept. I can't think of none. And I can't think of a way to find one, without endless flame wars... Licensing has the potential to kill Wikipedia. It would be very, very, very difficult to do it right. --Plauz 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe let the users create promotional content, like they create the other content? It should be relatively easy to arrange something with Cafe Press or similar companies to allow Wikimedia contributors to design custom T-shirts with foundation logos, and just always add $5 or $ 10 per item. Userbox bumperstickers could become quite fashionable. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Dilution with a capital 'D', and it just feels too much like "selling out" from knowledge to profit. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only if the partnership were knowledge-related. Cybiko123 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "yes, but only if done carefully".Ricahrdb of Wikisaurus
  • No, per Radiant!. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-23t01:25z
  • Yes but within certain limits and avoiding over exposure. Possibly pursuing our goals. For instance, gadgets as cafepress are ok, but I'm not so convinced about toys. Frieda 22:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only if it is done carefully and with constant attention towards the feelings of the community. Dar-Ape 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, at least not with games, gadgets, toys, candy, beer, and other "non-serious" stuff.

Should the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters license the project brands to ad-supported mirrors, mobile phone portals, etc.?[edit]

Many companies make use of our content and monetize it through advertising. We can theoretically permit them to use our brand freely, or not at all, or we can reach revenue sharing agreements which then benefit the organization as a whole. Given these options, which do you prefer?

  • Kind of a silly question without more details, but theoretically, the idea of a partnership where some company gets to use the name Wikipedia in exchange for giving us lots of cash sounds reasonable. Don't overdo it though. Stevage 07:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See below my answer about the issue of services using Wikipedia content and thus the Wikipedia brand, but that do not assume the customer service for things that they do wrong (outdated articles, incorrectly processed data, etc.). Problems with these services will be blamed on "Wikipedia" or the Foundation by users and the press. David.Monniaux 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If people are going to be mass-downloading content from WMF servers, and displaying that content with additional advertisements etc, at the very least we should ask them to pay the bandwidth costs (and maybe a little extra besides). --Whiteknight 14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If we can maintain the standards--I am troubled by the many mirrors using our content, plus a little of their own--its the "little of their own" part that would be troublesome. DGG 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't think of any scenario where that would be a good idea, as it would make the name too ambiguous. Anthony DiPierro
  • Free brand use would devaluate in it being copied by all ad-ill mirrors. Some licensing to serious companys (like the phone portal pointed) may be ok. Platonides 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We should license it to the serious companies. They're already making money off of our name in any case, so why shouldn't some of that go toward improving the project? We could even give a "seal of approval" to the enhanced-content high quality mirror sites.--Pharos 04:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes please, share, and get some money. Londenp 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. GFDL allows them to use the content anyway. GFDL requires mirrors etc. of our content to cite Wikipedia as source. So why not do it right and proactively deliver (free) content and (protected) logo and charge for it. GFDL is free as in free speech, not as in free beer. We're not in the games business (see above), but we are in the content business. I'd love to see a "Powered by Wikipedia" logo when I look up a reference article on my cell phone. :-) --Plauz 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't like it, but since the GFDL lets them use our content they should at least add some logos. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Plauz. If there's no stopping them, at least charge them for it. Cybiko123 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Do it with care. Richardb of Wiktionary/Wikisaurus.
  • It dependes on the purposes of the partnership. Frieda 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • At least I would not generally oppose. Keep very high standards, do it sparingly, rarely, and with great care. Keep prices high. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Brand protection[edit]

Should the Wikimedia Foundation attempt to give all its official names an equal level of protection?[edit]

International trademark registration in particular is a complex and expensive process. Currently WMF focuses on its most valuable brands. If all brands are meant to be protected equally, reducing the number of brands or raising significant amounts of funds specifically for brand management may be required.

  • Sounds like a question for a business analyst. Logically, the Wikipedia brand is far more important than WikiSources. Proceed from there. Stevage 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is more VALUABLE as a brand. It is wrong to suggest it is more important. All brands have their own importance and deserve protection as a project and as a brand. GerardM 08:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Equal protection for all names is impossible and I see no reason it should be a goal. Anthony DiPierro
  • Does the Trademark Committee exist? It would be nice to some day have an official report from the Foundation about management of the trademark and copyright portfolio. --JWSurf 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This question is impossible to be answer without really know how it cost to protect the trade mark and what are the possible levels of protection and their cost. What I am going to ask if it is easy and cheaper to make the same process for protection for all of the names, instead of making every one separately. Of course if we want to give different level of protection to same names, we should do a separate process, which is going to add extra cost. -- AnyFile
  • Focus on "Wikipedia" should suffice. I doubt that the other brands have or will ever get any noticable value. --Plauz 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm getting the impression that Plauz isn't involved in any of the lower non-Wikipedian projects. No offense to him in particular, but this is exactly why renaming everything "Wikipedia Xyz" would be such a bad idea. With the smaller projects all sisters in the Wikimedia family, we can at least aspire to someday being on nearly equal footing. If the small projects are relegated to just little forks of big Wikipedia, gangrene will be the result. (So yes, it should protect all its brands equally.) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. All official Wikimedia projects should have equal protection.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In theory it'd be nice. In practice it's less important for most of the brands, and may follow automatically if logos/names were somewhat more standardized. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "To each according to need". Smaller brands don't need to be protected as vigorously as the larger brands do. However, we need to keep in mind that as brands become larger (larger in general, not just in relation to other projects), they will need more protection. --Whiteknight 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be easier to protect starting at the beginning before everyone tries to dillute the brand? Bawolff 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Cybiko123 19:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • yes, what about if a book seller register wikibook logo? can you imagine people looking for wikibooks redirected to a store? 213.140.21.225 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Too costly to protect everything to the best possible level. USe sensible business judgement to protect appropriately. Richardb of Wiktionary/Wikisaurus.
  • Sure. Otherwise why are they official? Frieda 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think, that's not necessary. May be a question of cost. But I'm not an expert in international trademarks. I only know that worldwide protection may be very costly, if you include dozends of localized derivative names of a dozen projects names each, in a worldwide protection framework. My estimate is, that full protection in the EU part of Europe alone would demand a quarter million US$ anual base fees, plus prosecution cost as needed. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the Wikimedia Foundation attempt to protect unofficial local name variants such as "Vikipedio" and "Wikiştiri"?[edit]

  • Sure. Zscout370 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On this point, I would hope that the WMF would work with local chapters to make sure that the trademarks are protected in the countries where the languages are commonly spoken with these alternative names. For language projects that don't have a huge user base to support a local chapter, I would say that they shouldn't be a high priority for trademark protection. --Roberth 08:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I pretty much agree with Roberth on this. It will be a good idea to protect e.g. the Romanian equivalent in Romania and other countries with significant Romanian-language media, but spending money to protect the Old English "Wicipǣdia" in Japan or Welsh "Wicipedia" in French Guiana seems pointless. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Roberth. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree per Roberth. --Tooby 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the most important thing is to protect these in the relevant countries. But they should be protected, not ignored. Dovi 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Vikipedio is probably already protected due to its similarity to Wikipedia. I've never heard of Wikiştiri so I have no opinion on that name. Anthony DiPierro
  • Yes. I believe also that these unofficial names should be made official translations that can be used as synonyms when talking about a specific language projects. For instance, Wiktionnaire should be officially defined as a synonym of French Wiktionary. Note that in most cases, the translations are just adaptations of the English name to the other language's orthography/writing system.–Jérôme 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Principally no, the job of protection of the current official brands is big enough. If this should be protected then primarly with the help of and through the local chapter. Londenp 19:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The question to be done here is where the money came from for these registrations? Unless the WMF has a lot of money to spend for these registrations, it should be point out very clearly that such variant names can not be protect unless someone (local chapters or somebody else) pay for that. If this is known in advance nobody could reverse the argument to state that since these names are used than they should be protect and moneys spent for these. -- AnyFile 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely. Some of the projects are recognisable (among the speakers of the languages) (only) under their local names; eg. the Polish Wiktionary is translated as Wikisłownik - and it is under this name it is known, referred to and discussed on the Polish internet and real-life (actually, not just theoretically). In this situation it is even debatable whether the name is "unofficial" at all. // tsca [re] 12:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. This should be done by local Wikimedias.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but shouldn't be a high priority or a high effort. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well yes, but based on how busy it is. Whatever Wikipedia is in german, should be protected like mad, The wikipedia's with less then 100 edits needn't be to the same extent. Bawolff 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bawolff. Cybiko123 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Local chapters should take care of these names, with the guidance of WMF. Frieda 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What does "unofficial" mean in this context? Another incident of americacentrism? In almost all legislations, using a distinctive name (which is not already being used by others, and is not a common word of verydays language) creates some protection already. So, likely, we are doing this already at some low, and decent, level. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Brand strategy[edit]

Should new projects generally be started under a unique name that is not associated with any existing names?[edit]

  • Don't understand the question, perhaps an example would help. Stevage 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I presume this means something not using the prefix "Wiki"? --Roberth 08:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It depends entirely on the project, a project to develop literature for students learning a foreign language would sit well with the Wikibooks brand. A project to develop collaboratively written music would probably need a more independent name. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the wiki prefix should always prevail. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think yes, to avoid confusion. Users should easily distinguish between two projects. --Derbeth 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. Anthony DiPierro
  • What does wiki process stand for? Let the communities decide. Hillgentleman 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Hillgentleman, you are not "with it". Everything now depends on efficient branding. The Foundation should just hire a marketing agency to make all of the key decisions. It is time to find ways to move past the foot-dragging community and start making some seriou$ money. --JWSurf 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If that is the case, why don't we hire Jimbo Wales as the CMO? Hillgentleman 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Because a good Chief Marketing Officer cannot be someone who knows anything about wikis. We now need marketing experts who have experience selling things like sugar water, strip mines, or better yet, legislation to facilitate clear-cutting of forests.....real world marketing problems where the correct name makes all the difference. The Wikimedia community it just too comfortable with the current "jungle" of Wikimedia brands. We must protect the customer who is confused by all the wikithis and wikithat. We need to find a marketing expert who will not be distracted by the Wikimedia community. --JWSurf 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Thryduulf above. Not necessarily. Case by case should be the way to go. notafish }<';> 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And how would be called the current wikipedia? If it is true that the wikipedia name (or should I call it brand?) is more famous, why not should we try to improve the famous of other names? After all some years ago also Wikipedia name was not so famous. Having more than one famous name is always better than just one. Moroever unless the other names are completely dropped out, the registration fees for other names have to be paid anyway. -- AnyFile 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a really bad q. It is not a proffesional q, because this q pushes you just to two answers. So I should say give freedom to people!--Juan de Vojnikov 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Depends, really. Overall there shouldn't be too many projects with identical names, as that's more dilution. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • logos are recognized and stick to memory because of their overall visual properties, names do so primarily because of their overall sound. untity in sound however cannot be forced on the basis of spelling of even parts of the word (e.g. "wiktionary"), so this should be judged on a case-to-case basis, apart from the fact that a new project-idea may not always imply a new project as well. oscar 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What would be the alternative? Call Wikiversity "Wikipedia 2" in order to avoid another name, or what? Maybe I did not quite catch the sense of the question. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you support or oppose rebranding the projects as "Wikipedia Sources", "Wikipedia Quotes", "Wikipedia Textbooks", and so on?[edit]

See this mailing list post for background, but with the additional possibility for a "Wikipedia XY" project to receive a unique brand name later if it achieves similar success to Wikipedia in its domain.

  • Sounds pretty good. There is something about an encyclopaedia which automatically makes it the flagship. It makes sense to make the other projects subordinate to it, rather than equal. Stevage 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I voiced my opinion on Foundation-l about this topic, and I'll say it again.... I think this is a simply horrid idea. The various Wikimedia sister projects as current named have value to the brand names that they are using. This proposal is making a huge presumption that the existing communities that have been built up around the existing project names and identity marks simply don't exist. And once a brand switch occurs (such as Wikibooks to Wikipedia Textbooks), there will be no turning back. This is a one way door that will forever change the landscape of Wikimedia projects. --Roberth 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would oppose it. GerardM 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I too am against it for much the same reasons as Roberth. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Against. 1) Too long, and 2) I don't think that everything should be associated with Wikipedia, as they are not the same thing or subordinate. - FrancisTyers 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Longer names, and less clear meaning. Unnecessary, IMO. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a high risk in this experiment. This might work, but I think that it's better not use these new names. Rebranding is always expensive and may not work as expected. I also think that new names would cause confusion: people would start writing encyclopedic entries on "Wikipedia Books", would ask why Cat link becomes red on "Wikipedia Dictionary" and why their favourite templates are not on "Wikipedia News". Wikimedia projects have substantial differences, resulting from their separate identity and mission, and therefore we should not join them forcibly. --Derbeth 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad idea. Actually most other Wikimedia projects try to differentiate themselves from Wikipedia, not get closer. Yann 12:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is clearly an encyclopedia - that's in the name. To say Wikipedia Textbooks is to say Encyclopedia Textbooks, which is meaningless. If you want to travel this route, the correct way is probably to use "Wikimedia Textbooks", "Wikimedia Dictionary", and yes, "Wikimedia Encyclopedia", but there are a myriad reasons why this would be a bad idea too. --HappyDog 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with what people have said about projects trying to distinguish themselves, hence policies like wikipedia:WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Renaming to wikimedia would increase confusion between wikimedia and wikipedia I think. Mattb112885 12:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I like this idea, as I think it will be much clear. As is, anyone can use a similar name to one of our projects. For example, someone could use Wikitexts and have it be anything at all and I don't think we could maintain a trademark for anything that begins with wiki. But we probably could for anything that begins with Wikipedia. DGG 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This would be a very smart thing for the Foundation to do. If the "participants" in the projects would look outside the project for a moment, they'd see that 98%+ of the rest of the world, if they've heard of or used any Wikimedia Foundation property, they associate EVERYTHING with "Wikipedia". In branding, you go with your strengths, and for the Foundation and all its various projects, Wikipedia is the 900-pound gorilla of awareness and reputation. Tying everything back to Wikipedia will just be doing for the brand what your "customers" are already doing in their minds. --Centiare 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Roberth, FrancisTyers, Derbeth and Yann: too long names and too much confusion. --Tooby 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, as I have already on the foundation-l mailing list. Wikipedia is a success, but its faults are too big (reliablilty, e. g.) and are pretty much not present in projects like wikisource (at least de.wikisource). I think the name "Wikipedia Source" would significantly lower the standing of de.wikisource. --66.180.186.209 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Having followed the foundation-l discussion, I think the positives outweigh the negatives for grouping most of the projects under a common umbrella name. I think Wikimedia would be better that Wikipedia for this purpose, because of the potential for mistakenly connecting other projects to an encyclopedia. The most problematic would be Wikimedia News (which could be mistaken for "news about Wikimedia"). Though a common brand is desirable, I would oppose rebranding after Wikipedia; it would alienate too many participants, and if prominent links from the Main Page of the Wikipedias can't invigorate small projects, rebranding with the Wikipedia name is unlikely to do so.--Ragesoss 17:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would oppose this decision being made from the top down and imposed on the projects without a strong majority support within the core community of each of the projects involved. Otherwise, I neither oppose nor support it at this time - I really haven't decided. Anthony DiPierro
  • Oppose. Also note that you can make those secundary brands stronger by advertising it more between projects (footer?) Making everything 'pedias is a bad idea. Platonides 20:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Intuitively, I don't like this idea. The idea of multiple unique wiki-something names, each taking on one particular aspect of human knowledge, appeals to me on a fundamental level. But unfortunately, nowadays wiki-something names mean nothing. They're a dime a dozen, and most are run by do-nothing commercial Wikipedia scrapers. I think the time has come to do away with the "geek aesthetic" and embrace the one name that is recognizable to our ordinary readers. This would not mean any change in our mission or a prioritizing of the encyclopedia over other projects; indeed it would mean the more even distribution of the benefits and respectability that derive from the valuable Wikipedia brand. To many people around the world the word Wikipedia doesn't even mean "encyclopedia" exactly, it means something more like "pure knowledge". And extending that connotation to the other projects through the universal use of "Wikipedia" in branding can only be helpful. The exact form of such branding, of course, should be up to further discussion.--Pharos 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • They are misnomers. This suggestion lacks language sensitivity. Some may consider it a "smart move"; Fundamentally it is unwise. Hillgentleman 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think "misnomer avoidance" should be a really low priority compared to building the projects through increased visibility and participation.--Pharos 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • People come to a project if they hear a name, or perhaps see a logo, and become interested. The name should convey what the project is. This misnomer of a name may work in the short term by attracting a slightly larger (?) attention. However, are we attracting the right people? They come, but will they stay? If they stay, would they contribute values? Or would they contribute only to the statistics in [5]? I don't see how this cunning trick will work beyond the initial month of amusement. Compared to when wikipedia was less than one year old, is wikiversity doing better or worse? Please be patient. 揠苗助長 does not work. Hillgentleman 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Changing the name "Wikiversity" to "wikipedia-something" will send the message that "wikiversity is not comfortable in his own skins, and need wikipedia's umbrella". Wikiversity does want to make students and teachers in all levels feel comfortable. But whether the name wikiversity is a stumbling block to some requires a lot more discussion, and it is out of the scope of this narrow "brand" survey. And if wikiversity ever adopt another name, it would be a better name, and it will not be "wikipedia-xyz". Hillgentleman 04:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the question "are we attracting the right people?" is a very wrong-headed way of looking at things. We want everyone to use and hopefully participate in our projects. If a teacher comes to Wikibooks and downloads one free textbook for her students, that is definitely the "right people". The fact is, the reason the other projects are behind Wikipedia is that their jobs are fundamentally more difficult than the job of writing encyclopedia articles, and they need all the participation they can get. And projects with "Wikipedia" in the title will be much more likely to 1) be mentioned in the mainstream media and 2) be recognized immediately by ordinary internet readers as projects of value when they stumble across them, rather than superficially looking like another commercial "wiki-something" scrape site.--Pharos 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Again, a likely scenario is as follows: The proposal may work initially, and attract some people to come, and, seeing the difficulty in sustaining in a learing project, decide to leave; And, in the end, wikiversity gains very little, but she has already lost her identity. In short, 得不贘失。Hillgentleman 05:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand this point. New names such as "Wikipedia Sources" is hardly translateble into some languages. Names should be understandeble not only to Anglo-Saxon thinking people, but wider range of minds.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; they're not encyclopedias, so why should they have the "-pedia" suffix? This seems to be a case of letting the marketing types run roughshod over logic and common sense. Dtobias 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose calling Wikimedia sister projects, "Wikipedia X". In my estimation, this attempt to use Wikipedia's name recognition is a short-sighted marketing ploy. Let's get back to the job of planning how to gracefully grow Wikibooks into a larger project than Wikipedia during the next 20 years. There are many things the Wikimedia Foundation can be doing now to support growth of the sister projects. Playing games with project names is a distraction from the real work that needs to be done. --JWSurf 03:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -jkb- 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose a combination with Wikipedia. A combination with a name not connected to encyclopedia is something different. But there should be a common catch (also mentioned on the Foundation-l) that goes along with all the projects, something like Wikipedia - a WMF-project, Wikibooks - a WMF-projekt. Or Wikipedia - for free knowledge, Wikiquote - for free knowledge. Londenp 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons already mentionned here and especially here. In short, changing the names of every Wikipedia project to "Wikipedia somethingorother" presupposes that Wikipedia has a "good" ring to it in every single area, which I strongly believe is not the case. Criticism that Wikipedia can cope with might be deadly for other projects. notafish }<';>
  • oppose, I don't see the point to rebrand. Chanueting 02:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Besides the smaller projects considering it insulting, they are not encyclopedias, and there is no net benefit from this either. Titoxd(?!?) 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, with a example: one of the currents flamewars at the Portuguese Wikipedia has started wen some students from the biggest brazilian university (University of São Paulo, USP) tried to start a article reporting their strike. The initial reaction from some admins was very problematic, giving to a large amount of students on degrees like Antropology, History, Sociology and Pedagogy the possibility to full hate the Wikipedia. This is a big deal, a considerable amount of intellectuals hating us! Now the dislike is directed to some users, not the entire project. But... and if it weren't fixed? And if Wikisource and Wikibooks, projects that (IMHO) is in hope to give the attention from academics to develop and use theirs contents was rebranded to Wikipedia Sources and Wikipedia Textbooks? Rebranding projects to the Wikipedia (ignoring the fact that the only encyclopedia is the Wikipedia) name schema isn't only subjecting all projects to the good efects of a worldwide know name, but also to their negative effects. if you are bored with the flamewars from your project and knows a bit of Portuguese or is going to learn how to inveigh on that language: the RfD, article talk) 555 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. This would only confuse the users. Better to rely on a logo, font, graphic design or anything else to show they're sister projects.Flatterworld 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; fortunately, "branding" is not our main driving force. If Wikisource takes a few years to start building recognition, that is perfectly acceptable. We are not selling our product and don't need short-term media dazzling. (I wonder, would Wikipedia become Wikipedia Encyclopedia?) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:37:06, 03 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose. That will mean that others wikis are underprojects of Wikipedia. I'm against that ! --Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose, as I think that this will enforce a kind of hierarchy between projects. This already exists - because there is an influence due to the Foundation's projects history, and I see them as quite negative. Grimlock 12:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, but only for some projects (see above). It would support Wikipedia as a brand for references (like Encarta, Larousse, Brockhaus, Harper Collins, Oxford English Dictionary,...). Projects included would be Wikipedia Encylopedia, Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Textbooks, Wikipedia Quotes, Wikipedia News, Wikipedia Sources, Wikipedia Species. Exclude unrelated or experimental projects, like Wikijunior or Wikiversity. The common brand names would improve external perception. However the projects should continue to work as independently as possible. --Plauz 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. I'm not interesting in working under the project name such as "Wikipedia quote" or "Wikipedia source". Kzhr 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Really, strongly, completely oppose. The foundation-l conversation was horrifying... "The volunteers at the projects would be put off by this." "But is there a rational reason?" "The content is created by volunteers, and alienating volunteers is not a good thing to do." "Yes, but is there a rational reason?" (etc. etc.). If I understand the mission correctly, the foundation creates software and hosts projects so that volunteers can create content. Why the big push to alienate them?--SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose. The projects, spare Wikispecies, have completely conflicting goals to that of a 'pedia. Encyclopedias are about summarizing, Wikisource is about full length raw content; Wikinews is about urgent, here's what happening, ultimately with original research, Wikipedia is about let's put this event into perspective, and only quote what is known for sure. Totally different concepts, totally different brands. -- Zanimum 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a really bad idea, which is trying to hide some problems within hole wiki community. I am strongly oppose to rename wiki projects at this time.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rigid opposition. Wishing to remain civil, I would liken this suggestion to a suggestion to shoot ourselves in the foot; just because it is possible to stand on one foot, there is no reason to deliberately go that way. Walking is much preferable to hopping, notwithstanding my own extended signature on wikipedia. You might argue that we have too many legs (brands) atm, but consider the most numerous advanced animals around, insects, they have found them a blessing, able to customize their legs/wings to each creatures own niche. -- Cimon Avaro 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Only with the prefix "Wiki-" it is not possible to distinguish between a Wikimedia Project and an extern wiki. Many people are confused with names like Wikia, Wikipedia, Wikitravel, Wikispecies... and think that they all belong to the same foundation. A compound name would be much better and I think that "Wikipedia" is the best (most known) trademark to identify them. --SMP (talk page) 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. "The Wikipedia Quotebook" (etc) sounds fine to me, and may even remove the preception of WQ as a "lesser" project. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose — this would lose any brand recognition that these projects have and condemn them to always be confused with the encyclopedia project when the most important thing is for them to be recognized apart from the encyclopedia. Laura Scudder | Talk 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. It would create additional confusion among people who expect the "-pedia" suffix to denote an encyclopedia. The next suggestion (renaming the projects to "Wikimedia X") is less terrible, because at least we can say that images, sound files, textbooks, and source documents are all "-media". In addition, many of the sister projects have done a large amount of work to distinguish themselves from Wikipedia, and to establish name recognition independent of that project. --Whiteknight 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Wikipedia Quotations" sounds like quotations from Wikipedia articles. "Wikipedia dictionary" sounds like a guide to Wikipedia terminology. Fishal 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Branding Wiktionary as Wikipedia Dictionary would cause confusion etc. Computerjoe 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose (although i could see it for commons). I already spend way too much time pointing out to users at wikinews we are not wikipedia. This would make sense if they were all on one wiki perhaps (like how uncyclopedia is set up). I really don't like this idea. Besides, we are not selling anything. The projects must make it on their own for their long term success. Tricking people into thinking it is wikipedia won't work. Bawolff 02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support People have gotten used to the current names, but the re-branding will help us in the long run. People seem to be bitter about Wikipedia on other projects, such as Commons, and have taken offense to being confused as a "Wikipedia project". People need to get over that kind of stuff. Like it or not, Wikipedia is what started all of these projects, and it's more confusing to the outside world to make the artificial separation between projects, when it really is just a technical issue (quotes go to quotes, howtos go to -veristy, etc). The real world will be fast to adapt, probably faster than those who are familiar with the projects. -- Ned Scott 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ned Scott:People seem to be bitter about Wikipedia on other projects <----You had better justify your basic assumption. At most it only applies to a fraction of the people who has commented here. It certainly does not apply to me.
    • "help us in the long run" <---- "help" - in what sense?
    • "Wikipedia is what started all of these projects" <--- Most people have short attention spans and diverse interests. Building an encyclopaedia is more likely to succeed than building a library. Asimov got a similar idea a long time ago. It does not make wikipaedia the one and only.
    • "artificial separation between projects, when it really is just a technical issue "<---- No. The policies, licences, and communities are all different.Hillgentleman 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would oppose it. I think that Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc. should be separate from Wikipedia. Cybiko123 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with happydog, wikipedia xxx doesn't mean anything, (encyclopedia or textbook?) and implies too much sudditance. The Doc 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strong oppose although all projects falling under 1 trademark would save money perhaps, a name should apply to an underlying fact or matter, and to name them all "wikipedia"-such-and-so, big though wikipedia itself may at present be among our projects, is simply not correct: it is in the long run just one of them. so, simple though it may seem, this does not scale properly either. oscar 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Would support as sensible option to allow easier protection of the brand. Provided it doesn't destroy the communities inth eprocess of trying to get this agreed. Richardb of Wiktionary/Wikisaurus
  • oppose. Frieda 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose, Wikisource is more than just the source of Wikipédia. VIGNERON 09:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose unless given very good reasons for doing so. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose. Why does everyone concentrate on Wikipedia. I think that they should instead be renamed Wikinews encyclopedia, Wikinews textbooks etc as Wikinews needs publicity, Wikipedia doesn't. --Anonymous101 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you support or oppose rebranding the projects as "Wikimedia Sources", "Wikimedia Quotes", "Wikimedia Textbooks", and so on?[edit]

Otherwise as per above.

  • Ugh. Stevage 07:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Even worse. --Roberth 08:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Too long, one word names are more catchy. --Cruccone 09:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want us to appear like a big multinational corporation removing local identity to ram home the brand (think Northern SpiritArriva Trains Northern) then consider it. It wouldn't get my vote though. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see my comment above. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's even worse than previous suggestion. "Wikimedia" is not an important brand. --Derbeth 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not as bad as the above, but I think that it has more inconvenients than advantages. Yann 12:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Anything that begins with Wikimedia will be confusing. DGG 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not as good as the above, but if the Foundation truly thinks it can become the "driver" of the Wikipedia project (which I'm not sure it's clearly exercising as of yet), this "umbrella" branding approach is preferable to the current arrangement. --Centiare 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above. It has no sense, we will probably lose strenght. --Tooby 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Having followed the foundation-l discussion, I think the positives outweigh the negatives for grouping most of the projects under a common umbrella name. I think Wikimedia would be better that Wikipedia for this purpose, because of the potential for mistakenly connecting other projects to an encyclopedia. The most problematic would be Wikimedia News (which could be mistaken for "news about Wikimedia").--Ragesoss 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Copying from above, I would oppose this decision being made from the top down and imposed on the projects without a strong majority support within the core community of each of the projects involved. Otherwise, I neither oppose nor support it at this time - I really haven't decided. Anthony DiPierro
  • Slightly better than the previous as it doesn't make everything a 'pedia. Still, renaming is not the way to go. Platonides 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Better than the above choice, but do we really need to rename stuff? This whole survey seems like an attempt by the corporate marketing types to get the upper hand over the geeks. Dtobias 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose project names of the form "Wikimedia X". Such names would achieve nearly the same level of distracting annoyance as "Wikipedia X" names but with none of the short-term benefit from name recognition. Let us give thanks that Wikipedia was allowed to grow up on the strength of its community and its good-will mission and without the meddling of marketers. If only the sister projects could be granted the same blessings! --JWSurf 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless we rename Wikipedia "Wikimedia Encyclopedia" ;-) notafish }<';> 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely oppose, same as Notafish, only brand the name which we are using. Chanueting 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hell no. Let's go kill the most valuable brand we have and call it the Wikimedia Encyclopedia? I'll pass. Titoxd(?!?) 02:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither support, neither oppose. I think that "Wikimedia X" is a good alternate to use as full name wen you is trying to tell to someone about a project that aren't Wikipedia. The Wikimedia name sounds familiar if the people knows the Wikipedia and keepts the idea that aren't the same of Wikipedia. But banning the current shorter names isn't a good idea. "Wikimedia X" for these that don't know what some project is, "Wikix" for these that currently knows the project. 555 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yet textbook, news, encyclopaedia, academy are themselves various forms of media. "Wikimedia book" reminds me of "PIN number", "ATM machine" or "superhuman man". Hillgentleman 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. This would only confuse the users. Better to rely on a logo, font, graphic design or anything else to show they're sister projects.Flatterworld 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; fortunately, "branding" is not our main driving force. If Wikisource takes a few years to start building recognition, that is perfectly acceptable. We are not selling our product and don't need short-term media dazzling. (I wonder, would Wikipedia become Wikimedia Encyclopedia?) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:36:12, 03 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I agree with Pathoschild.--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 12:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose. Pahtoschild is right, according to me. Grimlock 12:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A little bit difficult to understand if this proposal is better or worse than the previous one. Anyway as notafish said this would required to rename wikipedia too, and this is surely a loss in the branding. Having all the name starting with a common name (Wikimedia) will enforce the union between the various projects in their name, but a change would means to loose any positions already got by the current names. Until the major part of the people would think to a project by Wikimedia when listening at/reading a word starting with wiki, changing that name would be a loose in branding power. The main problem here is not that the other name than wikipedia are not so famous, but that the Wikimedia name is almost unknown, but we cannot pay a sure lose (the name of the less famous projects) for a not sure improvement of the famous of the Wikimedia name. I can agree for sure that Wikimedia name should get more famous and need to, but a different way should be found to improve its visibility and famous. -- AnyFile 12:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nobody cares about Wikimedia. I think the solution is to split what's currently Wikimedia (Foundation and Chapters) in two organizations (see above). Wikipedia stands for content, Wikimedia for technology. Wikipedia is a highly visible brand. Wikimedia stands in the background and provides the technological services for Wikipedia. But Wikimedia also supports and enables other Open Content projects that have no relation to Wikipedia. --Plauz
  • Maybe as a #REDIRECT :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If WP had been named 'Wikimedia Encyclopedia' from the start, it would pretty soon have been abbreviated to Wikipedia, which would by now be the name used to refer to it in all but the most official places. Why can't this work retro-actively. "Wikipedia - The Wikimedia Encyclopedia", "Wiktionary - The Wikimedia Dictionary", etc.? --HappyDog 09:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it simply won't help, so it can only hurt. -- Zanimum 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also oppose.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Total opposition. Not shooting ourself in the leg, but instead electing to shoot ourself in the face. I fail to see how this is an improved suggestion. Loss of the wikipedia brand would be so silly as to defy words. -- Cimon Avaro 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Only with the prefix "Wiki-" it is not possible to distinguish between a Wikimedia Project and an extern wiki. Many people are confused with names like Wikia, Wikipedia, Wikitravel, Wikispecies... and think that they all belong to the same foundation. A compound name would be much better, but I think that "Wikipedia" is the best (most known) trademark to identify them and so I prefere the previous option. --SMP (talk page) 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No. "Wikimedia" is too confusing as it stands. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — the main advantage of the current names is pithiness. "Wikimedia blank" also confuses things by implying a blank about Wikimedia.
  • Opposee unless you rename Wikipedia to Wikimedia Encyclopaedia. Computerjoe 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that is a really bad idea. Renaming things confuses people to begin with, it sounds bad, and does not have any of the benifits of wikipedia blah. Bawolff 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose that. Let's just leave it the way it is. Cybiko123 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose one doesn't put one's name first to the names of all one's property unless taken into custody perhaps (oscar-car, oscar-watch, oscar-pants, oscar-computer, oscar-etc) ;-) adding the descriptive text "a wikimedia project" is more than sufficient imho. oscar 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose. We cannot rebrand projects after years.. we would lose visibility. But we can work to enforce these brands. Frieda 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose (but Wikimedia a little better than Wikipedia). 09:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you support or oppose rebranding the "Wikimedia Foundation" to "Wikipedia Foundation" in order to reduce Wikimedia/Wikipedia confusion?[edit]

  • Yes, at your earliest convenience. Stevage 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If we can legally do it, sure. Zscout370 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not! Wikimedia needs to be named to show they can be something more than a producer of encyclopedias. I think this is hugely discounting the value of the name Wikimedia, and presuming quite a bit that the other project names are useless. --Roberth 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose it. If you mean to create separate foundations for the other projects it might make sense. It would however be wrong because it would suggest that knowledge equals encyclopaedic knowledge. That is NOT our aim. GerardM 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not? I think Wikimedia is the weakest brand because it is not clear what it stands for. It may be a reasonable name for commons, which contains media, but that would be too confusing. --Cruccone 09:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No! The WMF is not just about Wikipedia, it would be confusing and unnecessary. - FrancisTyers 11:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikimedia means what it is, and it is not only about maintaining an encyclopedia. I'd suggest always using the Foundation suffix to reduce confusion, as i said above. See also David.Monniaux's opinion below, too. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It would even increase confusion IMO. People would think: if there is "Wikipedia Foundation", it has to be responsible for both the site and its content. I have no idea how such step might reduce this confusion. --Derbeth 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad idea for the reasons cited above. Yann 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I notice that there isn't a question asking if WMF should be re-branded the Wikisource Foundation, and I see no difference between that and the proposal here. I would support a completely new name to avoid the confusion (as per next question), however. --HappyDog 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter Blaise says: This would onlu INCREASE confusion. Wikipedia.org and MediaWiki / MediaWiki.org are PRODUCTS, WikiMediaFoundation is a company / corporation, supposedly with a life greater than and outside of either Wikipedia or MediaWiki. Is the real question is, "Should WikiMediaFoundation give up on everything but Wikipedia?"-- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Wikimedia is not only Wikipedia. Do not forget "sister projects", please. --Tooby 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, Stevage is right on the money. The problem with surveying "volunteer employees" like this, is that they have too much wrapped up in their own personal experience with the project to even recognize that the marketplace may have a completely different impression of the brand than the insiders do. Take it from me, someone who is about as much of an "outsider" you'll find (who also has 15 years of marketing research experience), this survey had better not be the be-all-end-all of your research. You need to talk to people who use Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Wikiwhateveria, but WHO HAVE NEVER CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROJECT. You'll begin to see that all this survey amounts to is a measure of how the internal community is going to react when the inevitable occurs and you change the entire brand umbrella to "Wikipedia". See below about the "Google model". --Centiare 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The opinions who are not familiar with the project are very valuable. Currently, the English Wikiversity need the contributions from primary school teachers and pupils. However, they are all different from each other. And an unfamiliar face, such as yours, cannot claim to be representative. We have legitamate reasons to doubt that this proposal would work.Hillgentleman 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Moreover, how can marketers with only trivial understanding of a project, decide what is good for it? On the other hand, Wikiversity welcome all marketers to help out in the Business School and Marketing Department. Centiare, you are very welcome to contribute. Hillgentleman 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite. I will look into it, but frankly, my plate is very full. Your skepticism of the "outsider" view is with merit. But, trust me, if the Foundation would just spend the few developer hours it would take to set up a "pop-up" survey that would target UNREGISTERED visitors to the various WMF sites, I strongly believe the results will show that 90%+ of your UNINDOCTRINATED VISITORS (likely 80%+ of your traffic/page views) think that just about anything with the prefix "wiki" in it practically EQUALS Wikipedia. Heck, look at how many times Jimbo has had to backtrack to news reporters when they confuse Wikia, Inc. with Wikipedia.org! (I can no longer count the number of times I've seen Wikia described in mainstream print as "the for-profit arm of Wikipedia".) If paid journalists and their managing editors can't even get THAT simple distinction straight, what do you think John Q. Public is thinking about Wikiversity? You can do whatever you want, but trust me -- this straw-poll-that-is-not-a-straw-poll is a terrible way to research naming or branding alternatives. It would be like the Board of Directors of McDonald's asking a room full of the company's C-level directors, procurement managers, and administrative clerks what kinds of hamburgers the chain should have on the menu. They're not the people the menu needs to satisfy! And, believe me, no hard feelings. I'm expert in few things, but marketing research design is about as close as I'll ever come to saying is my "area of expertise". --Centiare 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Centiare, Great. "90%+ of your UNINDOCTRINATED VISITORS (likely 80%+ of your traffic/page views) think that just about anything with the prefix "wiki" in it practically EQUALS Wikipedia." <-----it is indeed a problem, but How does the renaming proposal solve it? It doesn't. This proposal is to legitimise the confusion, not to solve it.
  • Let us agree on one point: A name is a bridge. In this case it connects "wikimedia community" and "the public" (or "the rest of the world"). It is important the that the name is one that the public understand; However, using an inaccurate name to cater for the public ear (and even this point is debatable; there is insufficient evidence) does not improve the public understanding of the wikimedia community. "Wikipedia Foundation" may be a comfortable bridge, but it certainly misleads. "Wikimedia Foundation" may not be the best name, but it means 100% of what it says.Hillgentleman 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In short, most people get it wrong because they don't know - and they may never need to know- what wikimedia foundation is. The name is only the surface. -Hillgentleman 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Eh, I'd mildly support it if no money were spent on the rebranding, but I don't think it'd make a difference. I'd prefer other names instead though. Anthony DiPierro
  • It will increase confusion, as we'd have two different Wikipedias. Platonides 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia Foundation is simply a wrong name. Please remember that this survey is started as an attempt to solve short term administrative pains with a long term change. I oppose it unless the board or Jimbo Wales says "We must do it or else we won't survive."-Hillgentleman 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is important to leverage our by-far most recognized brand to raise the recognizability and status of our foundation as a whole. This is not any sort of philosophical statement about the superiority of encyclopedic truth or of our encyclopedia project vs our other projects. It is just letting potential donors understand on an intuitive level exactly what this foundation is and what projects it is associated with. "Wikimedia" is just not intuitively recognizable.--Pharos 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Only if the Foundation is going to drop support of all the other projects. Otherwise, it's simply going to increase the confusion. --Carnildo 00:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember that this suggestion affects projects in all languages. Such "confusion" exists only in the English language. In Zhong Wen, 維基媒體, and 維基百科 are distinct and recognisable. There cannot be more than a handful of languages wherein the equivalents of "Encyclopaedia" and "media" are similar to each other.Hillgentleman 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, the confusion exists in almost all Romance languages, and many other European and non-European languages besides, because many of them take such terms from Greco-Latin roots.--Pharos 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose rebranding the "Wikimedia Foundation" to "Wikipedia Foundation". The distinction between Wikipedia and Wikimedia is not difficult to figure out. This proposal reminds me of the Indiana House of Representatives members who tried to legislate a rational value for Pi as a way "to avoid confusion". --JWSurf 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I support rebranding to Wikipedia Foundation (even if the other projects will not be rebranded). The reasons are simple: no confusion and benefits for both the brand Wikipedia as well as Wikipedia Foundation. Londenp 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As said many times above, and actually, as even stated in the bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation's scope is way broader than just Wikipedia. I do not see why we should narrow that scope by changing the name. Unless of course the wish is to point out that the Foundation only support Wikipedia, and not free knowledge in its entirety. notafish }<';> 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Wikimedia is not equal to Wikipedia at all, we have many other projects which are important too. Chanueting 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, no and no ! --Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 12:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose : as scientists can say : it is the better way to confuse the whole and a part of the whole. Grimlock 12:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Perfect chaos. :-) --Plauz 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Roberth has it right: "Wikimedia" captures a lot more (books, sound, images, news, etc.) than "Wikipedia" (an encyclopedia). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose, for likely every reason listed above, and more on top of that. -- Zanimum 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Anyway can you source this confusion. You are placing it here like a fact. Is it worldwide? Were there done any studyies?--Juan de Vojnikov 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support: It would help in reducing the confusion by showing our most known brand. --SMP (talk page) 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Clarity trumps confusion. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — I'm not so concerned if John Q. Public can't write a dissertation on the distinction between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, so long as he gets that they're related while the dedicated contributors are reminded that we're more than the encyclopedia. Laura Scudder | Talk 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Its the best brand in the stable and original source of it all. 84.9.171.30 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Think of the real world, people. This is about branding, not changing philosophy. This rebranding will help promote the projects and increase our growth. -- Ned Scott 20:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "Growth" <----See my comment here.Hillgentleman 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "This rebranding will help promote the projects and increase our growth." <---- It may be a true statement. But after it comes "at the cost of ...." Since the beginning, the author of this proposal has not provided any concrete evidence for this move's effectiveness, which has been very much doubted; and has ignored the costs it would incur. Fundamentally, I, as well as some people here, believe that this is a superficial short-sighted trick, inducing a long term change, and which does not really solve any fundamental problem. Hillgentleman 08:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Any one, who is daring enough to say the name "Wikipedia Foundation" would be produce a drastic result, had better give some concrete evidence, in the forms of serious study, in marketing theory, history, examples, etc. Hillgentleman 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose never sell the chicken for one of its golden eggs. oscar 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds like a sensible business decision which doesn't have any damaging effect on the community. Richardb of Wiktionary/Wikisaurus
  • strong oppose as per above. Besides WMF takes care of more than one project. Frieda 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, if you want to make the Wikisource Foundation, the Wikibooks Foundation, the Wikinews Foundation. There is more to Wikimedia and the Foundation then Wikipedia. Wikihermit 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wikimedia Foundation currently exists to support and promote many projects in addition to Wikipedia. A "Wikipedia Foundation" that is not completely focused on Wikipedia seems like it would create far more confusion. When people get the current names mixed up, I think it's far more out of ignorance than because the nomenclature is particularly obfuscatory. (Hmm... that last sentence was rather obfuscatory, though :-) Dar-Ape 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would greatly add to the confusion, and not reduce it, when three completely different things having similar names, now had identical names. I'd rather suggest making the names more different, e.g. keep Wikipedia, talk consistently of 'the Mediawiki-Software-suite', and call the foundation 'Foundation Free Content For a Free World (FFCFFW)' or something. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. Why does everyone focus on Wikipedia? --Anonymous101 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you support or oppose rebranding the "Wikimedia Foundation" to an entirely different name in order to reduce Wikimedia/Wikipedia confusion?[edit]

  • Wikipedia Foundation would be good. Failing that, something totally different. "Wikimedia Foundation" has turned out to be too confusing. Stevage 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No support. We already had much difficulty in explaining that "Wikipedia" is not a legal entity and that this entity is the Wikimedia Foundation, if we change the name we'll had to the confusion. Should you choose a name, choose something totally different. "Wikipedia Foundation" will be considered an insult for Wikimedia projects outside Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 08:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This confusion only happens once. When people have taken on board what the name is, they are fine. Another name has to be particularly good when it is not to lose its link with our projects. So I oppose with a reservation. GerardM 08:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe something like Wikiprojects, although we do not hold exclusive on Wikisomething brands, so it may not be the best idea. --Cruccone 09:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose unless the new name is something truly excellent. I've yet to see any suggestions that are anything other than a moderate improvement at best. Thryduulf (en,commons) 09:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not totally against it, I'd have to see the options, however for the moment against. - FrancisTyers 11:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with David.Monniaux, and besides Wikimedia is already quite meaningful. --Waldir 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How could this help? Absolutely not. --Derbeth 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would support it, so long as the new name is good enough. I don't see that the current name is enough of a problem to rebrand WMF to "We Do Wikis" or whatever, but if a great alternative was found then I think it could be a good move. Any such poll should include "keep the current name" as an option. --HappyDog 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind renaming it to just "the WMF" (like DVDs became "just DVDs"), or something of the sort. Mattb112885 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be changed, especially if we changed the name of Wikimedia, which will always be confusing because of its multiple meanings, all of them different from what it is. DGG 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per that of Stevage, I support Wikipedia Foundation. To further elaborate on why this works, look at the success of the largest Internet monolith out there -- Google. Sure, Google is more than just Search. But why do you think we have been encouraged to recognize names like Google Maps, Google Mail, Google Earth, Google Images, Google Books, Google Base, Google WHATEVER? It keeps consumers coming back to the brand that they love -- the one that merely began as a nifty search engine. It's WIKIPEDIA, folks. Admit it, embrace it, and exploit it to your benefit. --Centiare 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd strongly support this. I'd also support renaming the foundation to the WMF. As I've said above, I already try not to use the term "Wikimedia Foundation", and instead call the foundation "the WMF". Right now you can't even type "Wikimedia budget" into google without it automatically "correcting" this into "Wikipedia budget" (you'd have to search "+Wikimedia budget" to turn off autocorrection). The name is incredibly confusing. Anthony DiPierro
  • No strong opinion. The Wikipedia/Wikimedia/MediaWiki confusion is something of a problem, and of the three names, the Foundation is probably the least-known. --Carnildo 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the only question I'm answering. The only brand that anyone outside a very small group knows is "wikipedia" the rest just doesn't matter. If you want the foundation to be obviously connected to wikipedia then it should be renamed. If you want to draw attention to to other projects then call it something else, like it is now. This will confuse a majority of people, or they will ignore you [6], but a few will wonder why it's called something so odd, which may lead them to finding out about wikibooks etc. - Cohesion 03:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Get back to us when you want to propose a specific alternative for the Foundation's name. I'd like to see a real flashy alternative because I do not view the "confusion" between "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia" as being very important. --JWSurf 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Would not oppose, but let's keep in mind that a renaming would not only affect the Wikimedia Foundation but a wide range of organisations (9 chapters to this date and counting). notafish }<';> 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 12:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose : this would not change anything at best ... Grimlock 12:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What would be the new name? In the way it is written it is a too generic question. If we were to discuss if or not to adopt a new name we should previously known the new name. Written in this way the question is like to be as "are you bored of the Wikimedia name?", but the problem is not that Wikimedia is a bad name, the problem is just that it is not so famous. But if you try to solve a problem pretending that the problem is not the real one, but onother one you are not going to solve it. What would change if tomorrow we change all of the occurrences of "Wikimedia Foundation" with, for example" "XYZWER123HGF Foundation"? -- AnyFile 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No opinion. The problem roots deeper. I'd favor a separation of editorial and technological responsibility in two organisations (see above and below). The latter could still be called Wikimedia. Would make sense and express continuity. --Plauz 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose, for likely every reason listed above, and more on top of that. -- Zanimum 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Who is confusing this?--Juan de Vojnikov 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose In Complete Astonishment Giving ourself a complete face transplant to reduce confusion about our identity? I fail utterly to grasp the logic behind that. -- Cimon Avaro 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fairly indifferent, but I don't see how it would help. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — so because we're tired of explaining that we're Wikimedia not Wikipedia, we'll change our names again so that we can now explain how we're <blank> instead of Wikimedia or Wikipedia? That'll reduce confusion. Laura Scudder | Talk 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Too late in my opinion. At this point the confusion is not worth the trouble. (and really, average joe doesn't care) Besides, I've always liked the name (although it would be a better name for commons if it was not the foundation). Wikimedia has the kind of smooth feel of an official thing, and mediawiki has the feel of a technical name. Bawolff 02:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd support it. How about you call it the Wiki Foundation? Cybiko123 21:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WMF is not a rose ;-) Frieda 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • neutral, little oppose (Wikimedia is more than just Wikipedia). VIGNERON 09:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would not oppose; but do not propose it either. If it's really cheap, and many think of it as a good idea, ok. To me, it's unimportant. --Purodha Blissenbach 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Any other bright renaming ideas?[edit]

  • The domain www.wiki.org is apparently run by w:Ward Cunnigham, and hasn't been updated since 2002. We might be able to acquire it. Could "Wiki.Org" be another possible rebranding for "Wikimedia" (cf. w:Google.org)?--Pharos 07:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The software (Mediawiki) could use a different name, because the term "Mediawiki project" could mean either a project using the software, or a project endorsed by the foundation. Most of the former are not the latter. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • When I see Mediawiki project, I understand it as a project that uses the MediaWiki software. I think of a Wikimedia project as one that's endorsed by the foundation. WODUP 05:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I concur MediaWiki is confusing. Also the MediaWiki software could be used in a manner that poses a risk to the reputation of the Foundation and even the members of the board. Therefore wouldn't it be better to give up control over the MediaWiki software, as well rename it? The foundation only needs control over the version of the software it uses.--Chrisbak 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think it makes sense to "give up control" of MediaWiki; it's under the GPL anyway. But I really see no reason why it should use a Wikimedia-related name. It's confusing to ordinary people who see "Powered by MediaWiki", and the only people who really have to know the name anyway are programmers who are setting up their own wikis. I suggest a completely arbitrary name, like "SunflowerWiki" or something.--Pharos 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think renaming it is a good idea (too late imo). In wiki software area it has a bit of a brand in itself too. Bawolff 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I tink that "Wiki!" should be a good name for Mediawiki, it' immediate and powerfull The Doc 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps rebrand to WWWikipedia, WWWiktionary etc, and protect 'WWWiki.... Richardb of Wiktionary/Wikisaurus.

Are there other specific changes you would suggest to the current branding?[edit]

  • We should be very careful about authorizing the use of the brand name on any external project on which the Foundation has no immediate control. The experience on OTRS (that is, on the official contact emails of Wikimedia projects) is that many people email the Wikimedia Foundation for problems with third party sites. This includes sites totally unrelated to Wikipedia (but possibly sharing the same MediaWiki look'n'feel and a similarity of names) as well as projects that use Wikipedia data or content, but often use incorrect older versions and are infrequently updated, or possibly get garbled updates. One striking example is Google Earth, which has Wikipedia markers in incorrect locations: the Foundation daily receives emails about Google Earth, yet it has absolutely no means to correct issues on that service. My experience is that the current Wikipedia page is almost always correct. The fact that Google has no easily found contact address probably makes it worse (well, they do have a contact form but it's difficult to find). I thus recommend that use of any Wikimedia brand should not be authorized for third parties unless they take responsibility for their use, they clearly identify that they are not related to the Wikimedia Foundation, and they have an easily accessible "customer support" system. Otherwise, Foundation volunteers will be swamped by requests about problems they can't solve; also, this may end up in public relation problems, when journalists or others blame "Wikipedia" for things it has little or nothing to do. David.Monniaux 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe making it a renovable licensing for X months, under strict use responsability to be reviewed by stated community memebers? I.e. complaining to those users will make them aware of the problem to verify. Then they ask the company to correct X behaviour, with powers to rollbak their logo permission. That way the company must really care into correctly using it. Platonides 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • For sure any authorizations should have a limit in time and should be revocable (at least under good reasons). -- AnyFile 13:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the other things I see is that when people think of Wikipedia, they think about Jimbo Wales. We need to make it where it is not just Jimbo's brainchild; we need to show what we have done and also provide more faces to the world on who is the backbone of the going-ons at Wikipedia. Zscout370 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Jimmy has given Wikipedia a lot of visibility. He is an able presenter and he has done our projects a world of good. Also because of his recognition as both a leader and a presenter, he attracts people to come to presentations, congresses and conventions. This has been absolutely invaluable to us. When you state that more people have to be visible in this way, it will be for the chapters to present them in this way. It means that marketing has to be considered. Branding is an extension of marketing. We do not market ourselves as an organisation.. Then again, given our budget and given the qualities of people like Jimmy, we do ok. GerardM 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "it is not just Jimbo's brainchild;"<---Of course it is not. "when people think of Wikipedia, they think about Jimbo Wales"<---He is a founder and he is still on the board. It is fair. Hillgentleman 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I think that Jimbo is one of the best aspects of the brand. He comes across in the media as a "boy wonder"-type, and people appreciate and understand that kind of thing. Though of course we could use more faces as well.--Pharos 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we get the "wisdom of the crowds" idea successfully across to the mass public. What I think we fail to communicate to the public at large is the significance of us being a "free content" project. Most ordinary people probably think "free encyclopedia" means "free to read" or "anyone can edit", which are true and important parts of our mission, but they're missing a large part of it. They need to understand what makes Wikimedia projects different from YouTube on a more fundamental level. Emphasizing this will also help people to understand our status as a nonprofit charity better.--Pharos 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not having smart people waste their time on something so unimportant would be nice, but it probably won't happen. I can't even get myself to stop wasting my time contributing to this survey. Imagine if we could somehow apply the en:Pareto principle to generating and distributing free content! Anthony DiPierro
  • Yes. How about we stop thinking in terms of pure branding solutions and getting the most money out of it and start doing some serious targeted fundraising which will increase the image of Wikimedia altogether as a real actor in the distribution and fostering of free knowledge? notafish }<';> 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In Environmental Impact Statements, which decide whether projects in the U.S. receive federal tax dollars, there's one option that must always be analyzed: doing nothing. I don't see that the "do nothing" option has been considered or analyzed, nor the benefits and costs it has have been tabulated. Titoxd(?!?) 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As mentioned at various places above, I'd favor a separation in two organisations, something like Wikipedia Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikipedia as a brand (and organisation) stands for "free, up-to-date and reliable references". A Wikipedia Foundation would act more like a publishing company than anything else. It markets the content (people are willing to pay for free content if done right. More importantly it takes editorial responsibility. If someone wants to sue Wikipedia over content, they'll talk to Wikipedia Foundation. Wikipedia Foundation will need lawyers with a strong background in international copyright law. They will provide legal security in both directions. Internally, the will make sure that Wikipedia's (and related projects') content is legally sound. They will provide reliable guidelines and legal expertise so desperately needed in projects like Wikiquote! Externally they will defend Wikipedia's content against copyright infringerns who use our content without respecting GFDLs small print. And they will defend Wikipedias trademark, making sure we get enough money to pay the servers.
The new Wikimedia Foundation would host Wikipedia. But without all the responsibility for Wikipedia off the back, they can concentrate on promoting their services, MediaWiki software and GFDL license for other open content projects. This should help smaller and more creative approaches, like Wikiversity, to reach critical mass.
I think that this approach would also fit nicely with public perception. Wikimedia stands for a technology and a process to create free content. Wikipedia (and related reference projects) are a prime example of such content. --Plauz 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The interface skin used by WMF projects is also the default skin in the MediaWiki software. This means that there are thousands of wikis out there that look exactly like Wikipedia et al. How is anyone (even an experienced user) supposed to realise that WikiTravel is not a WMF project when it looks exactly like one? I think that the strongest thing we could do to reinforce the brand is to create a new skin that is used by WMF projects and only WMF projects, which is copyrighted/trademarked (if that is possible) and which is not included as part of the MediaWiki code. --HappyDog 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I recommend that at the least we should make it very clear at every Wikimedia project that it is a Wikimedia project. This would mean putting the sister projects at the top, not the bottom, with something like a banner that says something to the effect of "Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikimedia! Here are our projects:". I think it might be appropriate to put something in the sidebar too.--Pharos 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Main action field should be the enforcement of our brands other than Wiki[p|m]edia which are not so immediately recognizable up to now. Frieda 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If none are forced upon us, I see no needs. Keep them standing for high standards in public recognition. Do not try to much to push the lesser known ones to public attention; let that rather build up gradually by gaining reputation from mouth to mouth via good content and good opportunities for contributing (also steer contributors to a project where they can do what they acutally want, e.g. invite original reseach publishers away from WP into WV) --Purodha Blissenbach 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Analyse the benefits and costs of doing nothing option[edit]

  • I think the current Wikimedia Foundation and its "sisterproject" structure is logical and resilient. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." -- Quinobi 14:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia seems to work alright. But the sister projects don't have a real place. How do you explain a newbie, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a collection of quotes? People have rarely heard about Wiktionary or Wikiquote. And when they see them, they don't take them seriously. But if you tell them that they can contribute to Wikipedia not only in "Wikipedia Encylcopedia" but also "Wikipedia Dictionary" or "Wikipedia Quotes" or "Wikipedia Sources"? And if all these projects had the same Wikipedia's brand look and feel to it? It would make life so much easier, for readers and editors. Then there are the unaddressed legal issues. Wikipedia has arrived in the mainstream. The number of law suits will increase. I worked some time on Wikiquote recently where I found one huge copyright violation in dire need of clean-up. I'd love to have an organisation in the background that takes legal responsibility for the content, that can deal with law suits on a larger scale and can educate editors properly. The Wikipedia projects have reached a size, where lack of adequate organizational structure limits further growth. The confusion about brands is just a symptom. However, if we act now, there's a good chance for Wikipedia's sister projects to grow substantially in readership and content. --Plauz 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not changing the current brands is the best option. The primary, overriding goal of all Wikimedia projects is the development and distribution of free content, as evidenced by the Wikimedia mission statement. Making money is obviously necessary, but "branding" should never be a primary focus and there is no "marketplace". Indeed, despite any short-term benefits, merging all our brands will have significant long-term losses; it is important to realize that each project is unique and that they have unique brands.

    Merging all brands will destroy this uniqueness and make our encyclopedia the predominant project, despite the great potential of projects such as the Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource. It will alienate local editorial communities, and make the interests of the encyclopedia the predominant concern on all projects even over the local project. Unencyclopedic initiatives (such as Wikisource's agreements with libraries and repositories to scan rare texts) will lose all motivation, assuming anyone would be left to take the "Wikipedia source texts" subproject so seriously.

    Further, "Wikipedia" means "Wiki encyclopedia". Other projects are not part of the encyclopedia, so it makes no sense to call them "Encyclopedia source texts" or "Encyclopedia dictionary". Renaming them simply for short-term gain destroys their potential, much as Linux would never have become so important if it had been merged into Microsoft and renamed "Microsoft Windows Alternative". —{admin} Pathoschild 17:22:50, 03 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is certainly more well-known than are the other names, but they aren't completely unknown (heck, the vandals seem to know where to find them). Wikipedia also sits at sort of the happy medium for participants (editors and contributors) as well, since writing an article is more than just writing a 10-20 word definition, but less than writing a 500 page textbook. But the other projects have been getting some attention from both the academic world and elsewhere, so keeping the names as they are seems to me to be the best approach. "Doing nothing" isn't exactly it though... creating and improving content is doing something, and in fact is a much better way to create brand recognition than just renaming everything.--SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I become a friend of an upper idea of SB Johnny.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Other projects than Wikipedia do not get less attention because of their names but because of the interests people have. Take Wiktionary for example, there are few people interested in the correct orthography, flections, or translations/ other languages. In Wiktionary we write about a word not about a topic, this is boring for the mass. The other projects will always grow slower however you may name them. Let them take their time, they are growing. Best regards --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We only need to do enough to run the computers, develop the software. Let's not get into a Marketing Budget. We don't need to market Wiktionary (for example) in any expensive way. Whilst it still has a fair way to go to achieve quality, look at the traffic figures and you find it is taking off reasonably. Marketing could give us a problem of people expecting more quality than we can provide at this stime. Let it continue to grow and develop as it is now. Have some patience. But,, find enough money to keep the hardware and software up to scratch. Richardb of Wiktionary/Wikisaurus
  • wikipedia and WMF brands are ok, doing nothing for them is ok. Doing nothing at all is never a good choice ;-) Frieda 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Doing nothing - in the sense of no big changes - is ok for the brands, and does not cost extra. I cannot tell, how, and how much could be safed by changing something. I don't expect much, since illogical changes may safe money at the expense of wahtever is lost in a change. As long as we have no serious, lasting shortages - don't change a running system. --Purodha Blissenbach 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In which wikis are you active?[edit]

  • Wikipedia and Wikiversity. -Hillgentleman 07:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • en Wikibooks, and (slightly) en Wikipedia. Speaking of which, is this questionaire being offered to people in other languages? I'd assume it is but just want to know... - Mattb112885 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • zh and en wiki, Commons, and meta. Chanueting 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am bureaucrat on french Wikinews, sysop on french Wikipedia, french Wikiquote and french Wikiversity, I have account on lot of french and non-french speaking projects (WP br, da, de, en (Grimlockfr), it, es (Grimlockfr), fi, sv, nl, pt, ru, ja, no, pl + Wikt fr, en, es + WN en, es, it + WS fr + WB fr + Commons) Grimlock 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Im bureaucrat on French Wikiquote and French Wikinews. I'm sysop on french Wikipedia, Wiktionnary, Wikisource, Wikiversité and Wikibooks, too. I contribue also on Commons, and others wikimedia fondation projects.--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I started at Meta. I understood at the outset that meta.wikimedia.org was the community that was managing the MediaWiki software that made Wikipedia possible. I was active at w:Wikipedia:WikiProjects because I thought of them as topically focused communities of interest. Now I focus most efforts at Wikiversity. See v:Wikimedia and v:metacommunity -- Quinobi 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mostly Wikiquote and Wikipedia, with occasional participation on Meta, Commons, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Meta, Commons, Wikinews, Wikibooks, and MediaWiki.org; mostly en:, with rare appearances in fr: and de:. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I perform steward duties on most Wikimedia projects, administrate Meta, en-Wikipedia, en-Wikisource, and en-Wiktionary, and occasionally contribute to Commons. Now and then I'll edit the Foundation wiki and en-Wikinews, and I have a few personal wikis. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:59:31, 03 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Commons, and Wikipedia (all en, except commons, of course). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • en Wikiversity, Beta and cs Wikipedia.--Juan de Vojnikov 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • User of en and fi wikipedias. -- Cimon Avaro 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Enwiki. Radiant! 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • en.wikibooks, bureaucrat. --Whiteknight 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • en.wikipedia. Occassionally de & fr wikipedia, en wikinews (lapsed), en quote 84.9.171.30 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • en wikinews only (plus interwiki link fixes on wikipedia and other projects, etc but nothing major) Bawolff
  • sysop on it.wikipedia, sysop and bureaucrat on both it.wikinews and it.wikiversity. --Tooby 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • sysop on en.wikipedia and commons but en.wiktionary is where I find myself spending most of my wiki time atm. I've been semi-active on Meta in the past, but not presently. Thryduulf (en,commons) 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity. Cybiko123 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mainly ksh,de,en,nds,simple Wikipedias, almost every Wikipedia for internationalization, Commons, Meta, Omegawiki, de,en Wiktionaries, MediaZilla, pywikipediabot, toolserver, maybe more. --Purodha Blissenbach 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikinews (en/pt) mainly plus Wikinews (es/ar/it/fr) sometimes. I strongly oppose contributing to any product that uses the GFDL, which I consider unfree. --Anonymous101 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What does a Wiki-X name mean to you?[edit]

And does it bother you that the vast, vast majority of Wiki-X sites are not affiliated with Wikimedia? Is there another way you feel we can differentiate our projects in such an environment?--Pharos 06:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • No. Diversity is the rock on which Wikimedia is founded. The more sites are using the wiki-technology, the better off is Wikimedia Foundation. After all, WikiWikiWiki existed before wikipedia. Neither Wikimedia nor Wikipedia has any moral right to the name "Wiki-anything". Hillgentleman 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia has limited resources, therefore we can only host so many projects. The merits of individual projects speak for themselves. For example, wikisophia.org is [7] is a very good site. And what kind of "differentiation" do you want? And why?Hillgentleman 07:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The "differentiation" I'm talking about is simply having people recognize the difference between a Wikimedia project and a non-Wikimedia project. Because Wikimedia projects are quality projects. And well, other "Wiki-X" domain names, the majority of them are actually commercial Wikipedia scrapers, and the rest are hit-or-miss. (Don't get me wrong, some of them are quite good in spheres we don't cover, but it's important to establish the difference.)--Pharos 07:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the use of the wiki- prefix outside of the WMF is in any way bad. Consider the situation of soft-drink makers in the US: they have many different brands, not all of which are easily associated with the parent company that produce them. For instance, many people do not know whether Sprite is distributed by pepsi or coke. Coke and Pepsi also produce any products that people would never associate with those companies: bottled water, fruit juices, etc. So long as the individual projects succeed, it makes no difference if people can easily identify the parent organization. --Whiteknight 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think soft drinks are a good analogy. There are only a handful of major soft drink brands in the US, and consumers are familiar with all of their qualities, even if they don't know who owns the brands. Unlike the soft drinks industry, there is no barrier to entry in the "wiki market", and there are hundreds of them of an unknown nature. The majority of Wiki-X domains are in fact just copies of Wikipedia content; Pepsi does not have to deal with issue of scrapers. And Wikimedia projects do not just rely on people to consume; we really want active participants who will work on all our projects.--Pharos 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Something involving wiki, meaning a wikiwikiweb. Frieda 22:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiki-X to me means Wikiname of wiki such as Wikipedia or Wikibooks. Wikihermit 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks gods there are independent projects and other people are doing their things and pursuing their whatever-it-is. Thanks gods there are several wikis, wiki softwares, etc. etc. to choose from. Thanks gods there is not only one (-:stupid:-) foundation policy-ing everything. Thanks gods we have different countries, different styles, different communities, … etc. etc. etc. … --Purodha Blissenbach 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]