Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/23 June 2020 office hours
Appearance
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees has resolved to pause the Movement Brand Project until March 2021. Read the full resolution on the Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki. |
On 23 June, the Brand Project team held open office hours to answer the remaining questions from the naming convention presentation and to answer additional questions from the room.
[thumb of video to be inserted–having issues uploading the video to Commons]
Questions that were answered
[edit]Live questions from the room
[edit]- Is a brand change set in stone? How do you reconcile potential differences in the Executive statement and the Board statement?
- This change seems to be trading a loss of social capital with volunteers in an effort to gain brand capital. Would you consider that a fair summary? How would you respond to the volunteers that are not happy about a change?
- The naming options are the same and I'm not sure there's a discussion to be had on this basis.
- What if we were to just invest in Wikimedia instead? What have we tried on that?
- What about the community RfC? Why are you bothering with Wikipedia naming?
- Will there be a follow-up, final vote with the community about the final names?
- Will the Foundation name change if the community does not want it and the Board wants it?
- What outreach are you using?
- If the survey is not a vote but just about collecting feedback, why could a status quo option not be included in the survey?
From the naming convention presentation
[edit]- How will these not cause confusion between the Foundation and the Projects? (see FAQ)
- How will projects benefit from being tied to the "Wikipedia" name? I get that there should be a more unified identity for the movement as a whole, but how do the other projects stand to benefit? Would they lose out to Wikipedia because the Wikipedia brand will become even more prominent? (see FAQ)
- Question about the survey for groups, do we provide one survey for the group as a whole? If so, how to deal with very different or even opposite opinions?
- In a result-focused mind, how would you technically describe Alphabet's move? They left aside an even more famous name than Wikipedia. The opposite move, in a hunt for results
- Have you thought about changing the visual language of all the sister project logos, and not change the name Wikimedia. So that it all looks like it's a part of the same thing?
- We don't have time today, but perhaps in the next Q&A the team is going to describe how they are going to process all the survey input and decide a recommendation. How transparent is that going to be?
- Before deciding to opt-in my affiliate needs a legal consult, whose outcome might be that it is not suitable for us to opt-in. Would the WMF provide financial support for that?
- Now that is clear that all the three naming options include the word "Wikipedia" for the Foundation, how is the RFC going to be calculated in the metrics?
- Could "Wikimedia" go through the same professional polishing ?
- Do you think that fully volunteer-based affiliates might consider the legal processes as a new burden and challenge as legal processes are really tough in some countries? What is your feedback on those problems?
- Where is the option completely without wikipedia? Why was none such option included?