CentralNotice/Request/Movement Brand naming proposals

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

Movement Brand naming proposals[edit]

What is the purpose of the campaign? How will you measure the success of the campaign?[edit]

Description - (This is an initial draft request) The 2030 Movement Brand project is organizing a call for feedback on naming convention proposals (see Preparing for feedback on the naming convention proposals). After months of work and discussions, it will be the first time when actual proposals for naming conventions will be presented by the team. Even if this project is working on a brand system for Wikimedia organizations (affiliates and the Foundation), there have been enough signs showing that this is a topic interesting to individual contributors across the board. The team strives to get feedback from as many contributors as possible, from as many projects as possible. CentralNotice is a tool that can help achieving this goal. Suggestions to fine tune the details of this campaign are welcome.

Metrics - The banner points to a survey. We want to have at the very least 1000 survey participants, and 4000 would be a successful number.

What banner(s) will you use? What will be your landing page?[edit]

Banners - "Help build a brand for the Wikimedia movement that inspires new people to join us. Take the survey on proposed changes to names for the movement, affiliates and the Foundation. (16 June - 30 June)"

Landing Page - Coming soon

Is this project grant funded? Please provide a link[edit]

Type of grant - It's a project run by the Wikimedia Foundation

Link to grant - n/a

Discussion[edit]

  • I really don't think it's a good idea to go straight to a survey without any discussion of the proposals first. Seems like a clear application of polls are evil. (Not suggesting that an eventual clear yes/no vote wouldn't be a good idea, but jumping straight into one without thorough discussion first is something that tends to work out badly.)
    Also, two weeks seems like overdoing it. (Frankly, any banner might be overdoing it. There are lots of major proposals all the time that could use input, and they have to make do with just the normal channels...) Assuming a survey is to be run, please make the format public in advance to allow for comments/changes regarding the format. --Yair rand (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The notion of "polls are evil" refers to settling disputes by taking polls. This is not what the project is doing here. This is a survey to gather quantifiable structured feedback from as many contributors as possible with backgrounds as diverse as possible. This survey to individual contributors complements a survey for affiliates and a space for feedback in Meta. All this feedback will inform next steps as defined in the project timeline. As said above, we are explicitly seeking advice about the specific terms of this campaign: dates, target users, and so forth. The two week period corresponds to the survey period. Who sees the banners, how many times and for how long depends on more factors than those dates. Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion is a bit premature, given that the proposals haven't been released yet, and neither has the survey that the banner is intended to link to. There have already been two opportunities for community feedback (the original community review by the project team, and the community-organized RfC), and the current options that the Foundation's brand project team is suggested will be presented do not take take those into account. Based on the discussion above, it seems like survey the plans to present three choices that the movement has already deemed unacceptable, without explicitly presenting options that prior community discussion have endorsed, like a status quo option.
Since the number of times we can survey the community on this topic is limited, we should publicly review the options being presented and the structure of the survey to make sure that we're making optimal use of this opportunity to collect information. TomDotGov (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Having seen the proposed survey text, I oppose presenting the survey as it stands now to the larger community. The survey design is flawed as it does not allow the community to consider the question of if rebranding is a process that should be done at all. As a result, it's asking users to choose between three choices, all of which the user may consider to be worse than the status quo. That's not something that's useful for the rebranding discussion. TomDotGov (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WxF cares little for discussion. This survey, however secret or flawed, may be our only opportunity to be counted, if not heard. Banner should go to everyone for the whole two weeks. Pelagic (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Remember that the banners cannot be displayed in languages they're not translated in. Considering the target page doesn't even seem to exist in English yet, and you generally need at least a week to translate the banners, it seems exceedingly optimistic to be able to start this on June 16. I suggest that you launch translations of the whole package and then schedule the banner for a 10-14 days later. Nemo 08:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Will we be able to review and have input on the survey ahead of time? Whenever the community does a survey on the CentralNotice banner, we are required to have approved ahead of time three things by WMF staff: (1) the design of the banner, (2) the text on the landing page, and (3) the specific questions asked.--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi Pharos, in the next days we are going to publish the text of the banner landing page (the survey intro), the survey questions around the naming proposals, and a number of other details about the survey. These texts will be final, since they are being sent to translation in several languages. The naming proposals themselves will be presented on the 16th and will be published immediately following the presentation. Details about the three proposals presented in the survey have been explained here. Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pharos: Just to note, internally the WMF right now in the middle of reviewing its guidance following recent survey requests by the Irish and Slovak communities and changes in staffing in this area. The update to the guidance has been agreed in principle but I need to right out the details. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I think I cannot support this until we are given a chance to review the naming proposals themselves, and the status quo is included as an option. As @Nemo bis: points out, there is also no information about banners in any of the languages. This is not a great way to run surveys for our movement, it is inconsistent with what has always been required of the community by the WMF in the past, and delaying it by a week and allowing for proper review of the survey design would greatly help.--Pharos (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I regret to notice that there was little progress in the last ten days or so. It's clear by now that this banner cannot be ready on June 16th. I therefore oppose the proposed text and settings of the banner. Due to blatant disregard of the CentralNotice guidelines, I warn the proposers that if they insist on activating the banner with such content and settings then any Meta-Wiki sysop and CentralNotice administrator will be empowered to disable it. More in detail: 1) The text of the banner is biased towards people who share a certain jargon, such as "brand", and is misleading in various other ways such as the implicit suggestion that the survey is somehow sanctioned by the whole Wikimedia movement. The text should be more carefully drafted and its translateability tested thoroughly, per Writing clearly. We should also be able to see the rest of the content, for instance logo, presentation, size etc., which can bias the result. 2) The banner is not translated in all the target languages. 3) Nor is the target page. 4) The target is an external website which doesn't respect Wikimedia privacy standards (a frequent mistake by WMF, but worse here due to the wider target audience). Nemo 16:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • For the reasons outlined here, the banner must not go live.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the CentralNotice shouldn't be agreed until the actual text of the survey has been published. I have certain concerns that the survey will be framed in a way that encourages support for one particular outcome - and if it is there is no point pushing it out on CentralNotice. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nemo. Also, what is the supposed landing page? If it's anything other than any of the WMF wiki (like metawiki) then I'm excluded from taking part in the survey. tufor (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Please do not start a community discussion about a central notice until you have completed the landing page and the survey. It is hard to interpret this as not being at least a little bit disrespectful to the community and the community's limited time. GMGtalk 14:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose May God forgive me for what I am about to write, but I agree with Nemo. At least until all of his points are addressed. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose unless the issues identified above are addressed. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, the Brand team has posted a response in the project talk page addressing the concerns about the survey expressed over the weekend. Please read it since it helps understand what the survey is and is not, and therefore what the banner is communicating. Strictly about the banner:
We believe the text of the banner describes accurately the objective of the survey, which is to contribute to an alternative naming proposal and not to vote between different options to decide a winner.
The text of the survey has already been published, except the naming options. The wording of questions for evaluating each proposal is identical. The survey is structured to highlight what people like and do not like of each option in order to synthesize a final proposal.
While "brand' is a marketing term, its basic meaning is commonly used in mainstream media (product brands). We actually checked the Wikidata entry to see how this word was translated in many languages. For instance in Spanish the term used is "marca", which is a very common term. Conscious about the risk, we added a descriptive sentence referring to "names for the movement, affiliates and the Foundation", which is as plain as it gets.
As of now, the banner has been translated to 20 languages. We haven't received any complaints from translators. We keep working with the Brand Network of affiliates and individual contributors to increase the languages covered.
About the design, it is very simple, just using one of the icons that has been already used in many movement materials (a telescope). I believe CN admins can check the banner preview here.
About the landing page being in Qualtrics, the Wikimedia infrastructure doesn't offer a way to run a survey with multiple questions, structured data and private submissions, which we believe are all important factors to receive a high volume of responses and a wide representation of diverse types of volunteers, all in a format that can be quantified and processed. Qualtrics is a service vetted by the Legal team at the Foundation and CN banners have linked to Qualtrics surveys before.
For all these reasons, we maintain our request to run this campaign during the duration of the survey, from June 16 to June 30. If the Central Notice admins decide to delay the start of the campaign or not to run the campaign at all, we will respect the decision and seek alternatives urgently. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Now that the survey has been published, we can discuss whether the banner or the survey are biased or misleading, which seemed to be the main concern blocking the publication of the banner. The text of the landing page has been updated in the past hours based on the feedback received, and you can run through the survey to check what is being asked, and the options offered to answer. The survey scope is explained in the first sentence, "proposals for movement names based on our best-known brand, Wikipedia". The first paragraph explains that "Your input will help determine which elements of the different proposals should be removed, refined and recombined to create a proposal that will move to the design phase." Therefore, the survey is not designed or presented as a vote between options to decide a winner, neither as a process to decide whether the status quo should be kept or changed. If participants like the three options equally or don't like any at all, the survey allows them to express so. If participants want to propose other alternatives or express their preference to keep a Wikimedia based naming convention, the survey also provides a space to express so. The Board requested us to explore alternatives for a movement brand having Wikipedia as a central point, and this is what this project is explicitly doing. After a long process and Legal review, the team presented to the Board the three options that you can see in the survey, and they vetted them. About the timing, please believe me when I say that we are doing our best here. There are so many factors involved, so many dependencies. We request the CN admins to approve this banner campaign so we can all benefit from survey results based on a large quantity and wide diversity of participants. In addition to the report, we will release all the data anonymized for anyone to check. We understand that personal opinions may differ on the scope and the intention of the survey that different people would prefer to see, but the question is whether there is still any element preventing this banner campaign request from being approved. Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Could all the people who commented above, review, reflect and possibly revisit their position based on the information provided by Qgil-WMF just above ? And if it is still not ok, explain what is still needed ? It would be unfortunate to go to conflict about this. Yes ? Anthere (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • From a procedural perspective, this was a draft request, so the 10 day discussion period has yet to begin. The proposals that it is meant to discuss just came into existence, and so now it is possible to discuss them. To put this live with only hours of discussion seems like a bad idea.
    The comments above don't really address the fact that we're intruding on a lot of people to show them a survey that repeats a movement process that produced 10:1 opposition. On the chat for the Youtube stream that introduced the three names, the only people that seemed to support the new names were those employed by the WMF, and hence paid for their support. Right now, we have a survey that does not provide a clear way to indicate that none of the three proposed names should advanced through the process, despite that being near-universal community feedback. Since it would be irresponsible to use CentralNotice to simply ask the community "which of these three proposals is the least terrible", I continue to oppose broad distribution until a better method for collecting feedback is found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomDotGov (talk) 16:21, June 16, 2020‎
      • About "we have a survey that does not provide a clear way to indicate that none of the three proposed names should advanced through the process", this is not true. The survey offers "Strongly disagree" and "Disagree" options for each aspect of each proposal. The average participant of the RfC who voted {{oppose}} or {{strong oppose}} and thinks that no naming option is better than "Wikimedia" has a very clear way to express this in the survey. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Qgil-WMF:I'm going into the weeds a bit when it comes to survey design, but I think this is important. It might make sense to discuss this somewhere else.
The survey, as it stands now, asks the user to agree or disagree with each proposal six times. For example, I might strongly disagree with "This proposal will help explain the different elements of our movement and reduce confusion", and someone else might strongly disagree with "This proposal will help mitigate legal risks." We both might think that our objections are fatal, but all the other categories are fine, and we are fair critics, so we give them 5s. (There are aspects of the current proposals I'd give high scores to.) The result of this is that the proposal gets a 3 in the categories we disagree on, and a 5 in the others. But that doesn't represent our shared view that the proposal is fatally flawed.
That's why I'm saying that the survey, as designed, does not provide a clear way to indicate that none of the proposed names should be advanced through the process. Compare this to the RfC, where each poster decides which aspect(s) are most important to them, and indicates their support or opposition.
I'd be fine with a well-designed survey, especially one that explores community-originated options the WMF approves of. But this isn't it, and we shouldn't bother thousands of users with it. TomDotGov (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
In the way the survey is designed, the point is not to obtain a score for each of the three options and see which option wins. The naming convention resulting from this survey has a very high chance to be none of the three options as presented, but a combination of elements maybe picking from other ideas submitted. The analogy suggested was magnetic words like those people stick in the fridge. The point is to detect which aspects of each option are considered bad (and remove them), which can be improved (and refine them) and ways in which aspects now in different options and other suggestions received can be recombined, all this with the goal of defining the best alternative candidate to the status quo. In your example, the point is whether only a minority thinks that option A reduces confusion, or whether the opinion general, or something in between, and how well do the other options in comparison. And the same for the other five qualities. If the general sentiment would be "strongly disagree" to reduce confusion, then the survey data would show that clearly. I think this nuance is in fact a design strength for the objective of this survey (defining the best alternative to the status quo based on Wikipedia), compared with a simple support-oppose approach for each candidate or a simple ranking. You may disagree with the objective, but this doesn't mean the design is invalid. Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
As a little addendum, I'll also say there's another case. It's possible for someone to agree with all six criteria, and still oppose rebranding - for example, because they believe it would generate more disruption than benefit, or because they think the cost of rebranding would be better spent on higher priorities. The survey, as it is now, won't capture their views. TomDotGov (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, all surveys have limitations. You have several options here, depending of what main message you wan to contribute to the pool. You can rate the six aspects of the 3 options (probably you will have different preferences, and this will contribute to the survey), express that you oppose rebranding for the reasons explained in the text field, and you can even push for Wikimedia as an alternative option. Or you can express the "oppose rebranding" aspect by strongly disagreeing as a blunt way to express your opinion, explain in the text field, push for Wikimedia as alternative option. Or you can skip the survey altogether. This is still way more flexible and nuanced that a simple support-oppose or a ranking between options. Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Or you can express the "oppose rebranding" aspect by strongly disagreeing as a blunt way to express your opinion, explain in the text field, push for Wikimedia as alternative option.
That doesn't address the fact that the apparent premise for the survey has already been rejected by the community, and you are encouraging people to express an opinion where the Foundation has already made it clear they intend to ignore it. As far as I can see this proposal is dead in the water, and we should go ahead and close it, so that the Foundation can decide whether they wish to override community consensus a second time. GMGtalk 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Above, you're arguing against my position that "we have a survey that does not provide a clear way to indicate that none of the three proposed names should advanced through the process." I made the point that the survey does not have a clear way of determining this. You then kind of make the point that the survey was not designed to do this. Which is okay, but it doesn't really answer the objection that the survey doesn't have a clear way to indicate that a name should not be used.
The most valuable thing that the survey can provide to the branding project is a right-direction/wrong-direction reading, taking from a community larger than in meta. I get that it might be possible to tease this out of comments using a lot of work, in a way that will be subject to a lot of debate down the road. Before the survery launched, the community pointed out the survey doesn't address these concerns. I still don't think it does. TomDotGov (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, even if I accept the premise that that is a meaningful and useful thing to run a survey about in this context. I struggle to see how the survey would tell us much about the proposals if we're going to mix and match them in unclear ways. Whether or not a word reduces confusion depends on how it is used. How could we possibly answer if the word "Trust", independently, reduces confusion or helps sister projects, without knowing the full context it will be used in. Bawolff (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I still feel that the concerns above and at Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project#CentralNotice survey should be delayed a week to allow for proper review have not been addressed. There is still no status quo option, which is the option that the community has preferred by about 10:1, with ~460 Wikimedians participating. I wish to emphasize that I would absolutely support a neutral centralnotice linking to a survey (even a Qualtrics survey) that has a robust methodology designed to accurately reflect community sentiment, whatever that may be. I also would support a neutral centralnotice to the Meta RFC. However, I cannot support a centralnotice to a proposed survey that appears designed to produce a WMF-preferred result, the community notwithstanding. I also second TomDotGov's notes above. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • We waited patiently to see the actual proposals, and all three call the foundation "Wikipedia". This is not a choice.--Pharos (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
      • It was never meant to be a choice, it was all decided from the very beginning by this very small group of heavily invested renamers. Just look al the early presentaions, that made completely clear, that there was not the slightest interesset in real discussion, just in acclamation. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not see any reason to change my opinion. The survey has already taken place, and the result is 1:10.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Will the methodology/criteria used to evaluate the results of the survey be published before the end of the survey (preferably before it starts, but too late now)? I have concerns because it seems like the metodology of a previous brand related survey was questionable. Bawolff (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Favor. The survey has started. The period for responses is most likely going to be extended. I welcome more input from more people. A central notice is the proper way to go. The current wording is neutral. The survey includes the three naming proposals of the rebranding team. Everyone can respond to them in the survey whether they like them or not. The survey provides room to enter as fourth option your own naming convention proposal. The survey includes multiple open question. I used the survey to provide feedback, including my views on the Wikimedia Brand project vis-a-vis the Wikimedia 2030 Movement strategy process. So far the WMF seems to have done nothing with the first and foremost recommendation of Verizon in their review of the governance of the Foundation: Commission a stakeholder analysis and/or utilize a task force to gain a full understanding of instances where goals and priorities of the Movement/community and the Foundation may vary or be at odds, so that these can be properly addressed by the board and CEO in partnership, utilizing community input. It is very clear there is no inventory of stakeholders in the movement including an inventory of their (unmet) needs, and other parts for a thorough stakeholder analysis that could inform a strategy process, including the Movement strategy process and the Brand strategy process. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Of course have they started the survey, they simply don't give a damn about the community, why should they bother here? The survey is far from neutral in its wording, as it still presents the 3 nearly identical proposals by the small group of renamers more prominent then the status quo, that is preferred by the overwhelming majority of the community. It's a extremely biased survey, something the WMF is quite famous for, and it will be evaluated in secret by the onnes with a clear and extremely biased agenda, so the outcome is clear as well and has nothing to do with the input of any participant. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • If an overwhelming majority of the community "strongly disagree" to naming options based on Wikipedia, the CN campaign we are requesting here provides them a tool to know that they are being asked and express their opinion in a few clicks. The survey data, which will be publicly available, should be very useful to anyone interested in views about this question across the movement wide and large. I think I have addressed your other points in my previous comments above. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure being asked to express your opinion is necessarily the same as having any realistic expectation that that opinion will be taken under any serious consideration. The Foundation has already made it fairly clear that they are going to do what they want regardless of what the community says. So no, I don't see it as a productive use of either the CN system or the community's time to provide perfunctory input when they've already been notified it will be ignored. GMGtalk 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the survey has not been constructed neutrally, I'm very reticent to permit the banner request. I have some minor other issues, but they'd all be fine if the survey was restarted with a status quo option. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In case the CentralNotice admins need more perspectives on this, there's a straw poll question as to if the survey about naming proposals should include the status quo as an option, with the same prominence as other names. Right now, 151 agree that it should, and one user appears to disagree (though their entry is in the "Other" list). This survey question has been translated into 7 languages, and is currently on Meta's front page. TomDotGov (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, just as a kind reminder (and maybe a clarification?), we are still expecting an approval of this CN campaign request. In addition to the changes made that I explained above, we are ready to extend the survey dates in order to accommodate to the 2 week period of the campaign. Because there is so much being discussed in so many places, I suggest to focus here the discussion about the validity of this CN request, and move the discussions about all the rest wherever corresponds. If you consider this CN request valid, please approve it. If you don't consider it valid, please explain why so we can either discuss or fix the problems. If you have further questions relevant to the approval of the campaign, please ask them. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Qgil-WMF: It's an invalid request because it is an absurdly biased survey, and we have standards against that, standards that in normal circumstances (anyone else proposing such a thing) WMF would be seeking to enforce. We have asked you to fix this clearly and repeatedly, and many of the commenters above are themselves CN admins.--Pharos (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We did change the text of the survey based on the feedback received. The landing page explains what is this survey about what will be done with the results. If there are still accusations about this survey being biased as it is explicitly presented, please provide details. I think the accusation of bias of this survey is being mixed with the expectation or desire that this survey wouldn't be about alternatives to the Wikimedia brand but a poll between multiple brand options including Wikimedia. It is clear that you and many others in this discussion disagree on the purpose of the survey, but this doesn't make it biased, and I don't think a CN campaign can be considered invalid because of disagreement with its purpose. Qgil-WMF (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with a well designed survey, but for the reasons I outlined above this isn't it. While I'd rather a survey include community-originated choices, the survey design mistakes are what should stop this survey from being more widely distributed. TomDotGov (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I tried to explain why I think the "survey mistakes" you identified are in fact design strengths for the objectives of this survey. Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I replied above. I think it's reasonable for the CN process to consider if a proposed notice will be useful to the community it's aimed at - I'd say that's probably the main reason for community control of this process. Also, and this is a real technical thing - you do realize this is still marked as a draft with an incorrect date, right? TomDotGov (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose J'ai pas compris de quoi ça cause, y a pas de proposition claire. Nemo a présenté plusieurs arguments qui n'ont pas entrainé de corrections. J'en sélectionne un et indique qu'il me parait tout à fait irrespectueux de balancer au visage des gens des textes qui ne sont pas dans leurs langues en prétendant vouloir les inclure dans la conversation. Noé (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Noé, I did reply to Nemo's points above? I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, but the survey is offered in Chinese, English, French, German, Russian and Spanish. Respndent are told that they can answer in the language they prefer. About the language of the banner, it is translated to several languages already, and we can just follow the same conditions applied to other campaigns targeting all wikis. Qgil-WMF (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for your reply. I now checked the translation, I haven't found them earlier as they were mentioned in the course of the discussion, not in the main part of the demand. We still can't see who will sign this message, and I am opposed to see "The Movement" in it as it only came from the Foundation staff and board, despite the RfC that express the voice of the movement. About Nemo's comment, I am not very familiar with the point he made but "The target is an external website which doesn't respect Wikimedia privacy standards" is a strong point and I haven't read a clear answer to it. Noé (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Noé: Hi, I had addressed the point about Qualtrics here. Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Qgil-WMF Sorry but why was it not translated in Italian? Looking at the average number of Wikipedia contributors (higher than zh) and considering the number of articles listed here I think that Italian should have been included. --Civvì (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Civvi: I wish there was an official list of languages required / recommended for global campaigns in Wikimedia, but is there any? We took as reference the w:Official languages of the United Nations and German was added as well (second biggest language community in our movement). Although citationneeded, Mandarin is second language for many speakers of other languages in Asia, so maybe that Chinese translation is useful beyond the editors of Chinese variants? In any case, this alone shouldn't be a reason to block this CN campaign. Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: This is getting a bit off-topic, but although there's no standard recommendation, I would suggest these priorities: There are eight "big" languages on Wikimedia before a considerable "gap": English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Italian, and Mandarin, in that order. (Depending on how you count things, the order of German/French and Spanish/Russian/Japanese might be mixed around, but that's the general scale.) Lower priorities would be the next handful, Polish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Dutch. Personally, I don't think there should be any particular requirement of translations into certain languages for a banner to run, but there should be enough time given for volunteers to translate all relevant content in advance. Of course, this shouldn't be an issue, since in a transparent organization, there are no surprises, certainly never any "reveals", hm? :) --Yair rand (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A proposal to move forward. The survey has been explained and endorsed at the Executive statement and the Board update. Aspects like use of Qualtrics, the lack of Italian translation or other survey limitations don't feel (to me at least) like being reasons by themselves to block a survey because there have been campaigns in the past with the same or similar conditions that were approved without controversy. Pharos has created another proposal alternative to this one. In the context of this CentralNotice discussion, can we leave behind the questioning of the survey itself (which has been running for 6 days and so far has received more than 500 responses) and focus on the banner and the landing page of the campaign, please? Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose I still fail to see any compliance of this extremely biased, manipulating, and community ignoring fake survey, that will deliver absolutely no useful answers to anything. It's scientific rubbish, it#s methodological rubbish, it's illegitimate and it's deceiving. Why should the community allow such a spit in it's face? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC) P.S.: This is the community vetting of that so-called survey: It doesn't even remotely met any standard required. It needs a complete overhaul before it's ready for primetime. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "[C]an we leave behind the questioning of the survey itself... and focus on the banner and the landing page of the campaign, please?" Respectfully, I don't think that's the right approach. In my view, the banner, landing page, the survey, and their goals are all properly within the scope of discussion. Important issues discussed above have largely not been resolved, and still ought to prevent banner go-live.
    Additionally, I cannot help but question whether CentralNotice/Usage guidelines #3 has been satisfied. The goals of the centralnotice must "[b]e consensus-driven" and "respect our [community's] principles". When I look at this and related discussions, I don't see much agreement that that is the case. Indeed, it would be reasonable to say that this process, as a whole, is designed to not "[b]e consensus-driven" and to disrespect our movement's "principles". Unless significant changes are made, I cannot see this requirement being met. Therefore, I still Oppose Oppose this request. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • perhaps im missing something, but the landing page is listed as "coming soon". I'm not sure how to discuss that. Bawolff (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The executive statement has gotten so little support from the larger community that I think it's best considered to be irrelevant to this discussion, and the letter from a board member leaves it to the community to engage in discussion about the survey. I believe that the consensus, both here and at the straw poll, is that the survey shouldn't run without being able to capture if the community believes that the proposed brands are better or worse than the status quo. While I think it might be possible for the new proposal to convince me it can capture community opinion, I'll be honest and say I think it's an uphill battle.
I don't know of a better place than this to discuss the survey proper, and I think it's a little unfair to repeatedly ask us to ignore such questions, especially when feedback like this email (from User:Jan-Bart) is common:

However: there is a question if you can accurately measure the outcome of the survey as it is formulated now (which should give you a good indication of the movements feelings on this topic)… I have heard several people complain that it is “not easy” to fill in the survey to indicate that one is against a name change altogether. It might be a good idea to make this an easier option or gauge feedback in another way. by pausing or restarting the community consultation process in a different way.

Where do you believe that the right place to have such a discussion is? TomDotGov (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Info: Instead of a banner, they have now used a mass message to (all? most?) projects village pumps etc., they even got the message translated this time in some languages. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed the CN campaign request. The survey is ending today. Can someone inform about the next steps updating this page accordingly, please? Thank you very much for this discussion. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Did it happen or not?[edit]

What the hell? I was waiting for a banner or something. Did the survey go ahead or was it postponed again? Was notice sent? Pinging Qgil-WMF as primary contact. Pelagic (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

More info: after writing the above, I found the survey and that it is not yet closed, only from the link above stamped 19:03, 16 June. Meta main page under Current Events has a link to the survey text but not the actual survey. How are people finding it and filling it out? Pelagic (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Central Notice admin comments[edit]