Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming survey feedback report

From 16 June to 7 July 2020, as part of Phase 2 of the Movement Brand Project process, the Wikimedia Foundation Brand Project Team invited affiliates, individual contributors and Wikimedia Foundation staff to provide feedback on 3 proposed naming conventions for the movement. Here is the summary of the feedback and the recommendations for the next round of naming.

The main report is available for download as a 71 page PDF presentation (5 Mbytes).

The validity of the survey is contested by the community. See more on the concerns section below.

Objective

The purpose of the survey was to understand which proposal(s) and elements of each proposal should be removed, refined and recombined to then be able to develop one naming proposal. It was not a vote.

Survey Participation

Survey group	# of responses	Overview
Individual Contributors	1080	78 different project languages were represented with the top 5 being English (32.1%), German (17.2%), Italian (14.0%), French (10.3%), and Spanish (2.6%) Over half of respondents currently live in Europe (58.1%) followed by North America (11.9%). The least were from Oceania (1.6%) and Latin America (2.3%). The majority of respondents (72.5%) identified as male, while 87% of Wikimedians identify as male according to the 2020 Community Insights Survey
Affiliates	63	Over half (59%) of all the Chapters and 30% of all user groups submitted a survey. European affiliates were the highest represented (33.3%) followed by Africa (23.8%) and Asia (15.9%)
Foundation Departments	8	All 8 departments submitted a response.

Executive Summary

Affiliates in Asia and Africa agree the most that a Wikipedia-based naming system "will help their affiliate" compared to European and North American affiliates who mostly disagree.
“Network”, “Organization”, “Trust”, and “Wiki” terms were ranked low and should be removed from future naming considerations. “Movement” term was productively associated with social causes, politics, and the future and should be further refined.
No single naming system showed sufficient scoring to be recommended, and a second round of revision is advised (as per project plan.)

What should be Removed, Refined, Recombined

Remove

“Organization” as a descriptor term for Chapters and the Foundation It is too vague, lacks purpose and is generally used by for profit entities.

“Network” as a descriptor term for the Movement It negatively associates the movement with corporate entities like broadcast and social media networks.

“Trust” as a descriptor term for the Foundation It is not a localizable concept and is generally associated to financial and legal entities.

“Wiki” for the name of the movement It is too generic, heavily associated with non-Wikimedia “Wikis” and is not able to be trademark protected.

“Foundation” as a descriptor term for the Chapters (note: Foundation was favorably reviewed as a name for the international non-profit) Many Chapters are legally restricted to be able to be called a “Foundation”.

Refine

“Movement” as a term for the entire affiliate ecosystem How should it be used for maximum benefit to reach the 2030 goals?

Newly suggested names and descriptor terms Further exploration of suggested names and descriptor terms such as “Association” “Society”, “Community” and, “World/Global”. (more information on slides 31 - 36 of the report)

The interconnection between Wikipedia & the Sister projects , demonstrating how elevating one project can support the others and help reduce confusion, is still unclear.

Legal consequences for affiliates to adopt “Wikipedia” in their name Further develop and assess the foreseen legal concerns so affiliates can have a greater understanding of Wikipedia centered name.

Recombine

“Foundation” can be only the descriptor term for the global nonprofit Recombine elements of proposal 1 & 3 where “Foundation” is only used for the Foundation not Chapters

The balance between independence of different organizations of the movement & the interconnection between all parts. For example: Creating enough distinction yet connection between the Foundation and affiliate names.

Non-English words Exploring further the meaning of non-English words rather than the direct translation.

Concerns and limits to the survey

Feedback was provided through surveys, on the talk page for the naming convention proposals, and on the talk pages for each proposal. This is the summary of the survey feedback and the recommendations for the next round of naming, based on the survey Alone.

This survey suffered from community concerns that prevented it from being run as a banner. As a result, it received one quarter of the number of responses that would have been required for a successful survey. The survey was centered around just one name, Wikipedia, which was already rejected by the community. There was no easy possibility to say something about any other naming convention, the survey was biased towards an already rejected solution. The survey software prohibited respondents from proceeding without supporting one of the Wikipedia variants. Respondents who opposed all Wikipedia variants were forced to enter random/garbage data in order to proceed.

The section "What should be Removed, Refined, Recombined" may be incomplete, due to a survey design that was not intended to determine if the use of the name Wikipedia was acceptable, and the Wikimedia Foundation Brand Project Team's refusal to consider comments indicating that Wikipedia branding is unacceptable when producing these recommendations.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to everyone who took the time to schedule meetings to discuss the proposals with their affiliates and communities and provide feedback.