Talk:Brand Network

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Selsharbaty (WMF) in topic Brand architecture proposal

This page is the discussion space of the Brand Network–a space for collaborating on the development of an evolved brand system for the Wikimedia movement. Comments about the motivations behind and the handling of the 2030 Movement Brand Project belong on its project talk page and will be moved accordingly.

Discussion prompts coming shortly[edit]

The date of this move to Meta was determined by the closure of Wikimedia Space, but those of you who have been following the project know that there is currently a short pause in community activity on the project in light of COVID-19. Expect materials and discussion prompts from the Brand Project Team once the pause is over, but in the meantime, feel free to start any discussions or ask any questions around the development of a new movement brand system. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank your for the invitation to post new discussions. I suggest to seed this discussion forum with some topics from previous conversations. Nemo 10:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

April update on the project timeline and planning[edit]

Hi All,

As promised we are back with an update on the 2030 Movement Brand Project based on the new realities we all face due to the global pandemic.

We know there continues to be so much uncertainty, which is why we are slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are happening to all of us these days. With that, we want to make sure that we respect your time and priorities. This means updating the project timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and smaller time commitments, revising the project schedule month by month and keeping you informed on a more regular basis with any updates and changes.

This month: live unified concept reveal! To honor, celebrate, and conclude the work that many of you have been very involved with around the concepts, Snohetta and the Brand Project team will present the Unified Concept LIVE on 16 April, 15:00 - 16:00 GMT. The session will also be recorded and made available for viewing after. Please mark your calendars! We will follow up next week with participation details. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(How did we get to this point? A major proposal developed over a long time period, and we can't even see how it's progressing until a "reveal" happens? And that we find out about something via an announcement? And when further questions have to be asked, a particular party has the answer that others don't? I don't even think the WMF understands how badly they're constantly failing in the most basic things, even ignoring the fact that we're talking about a proposal which was rejected, and yet still lives...)
I would like to know if the above post means that the process for developing this "unified concept" has already concluded. Will new feedback change anything in the proposal, as will be presented on the 16th? --Yair rand (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand, to clarify, this concept reveal is based on answers to Exercise #2: Who are we?, which we held last month allowing participants to review the concepts from the brand workshops held earlier this year. [1][2][3] The unified concept that will be revealed will capture the different concepts presented at the workshops, and the feedback given on those concepts, into one central concept, which will be used throughout the rest of the process. Naming conventions, design development and style guides are still to come. This process is still far from having a brand proposal for review (see the timeline, which will be updated this week to reflect extensions due to the global situation).--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Is there going to be a status report on things like the naming convention? It's pretty clearly been the part of this project that the movement has been the most concerned about since it was first announced. While it may not be time to determine a final name for the Foundation, over six months into the process and three months after the RfC started, it should be possible to give the community a clear idea of what's under consideration and what's not. TomDotGov (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, @TomDotGov. We will have a status report on naming during the presentation. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Participation details[edit]

The session will be held on 16 April from 1500 to 1600 UTC. You can join us either on Zoom (using this link) or watch live on YouTube (using this link). There will be space for discussion by posting questions and comments on both platforms using the live chat, and on IRC at #wikimedia-officeconnect (this IRC rooms requires identification to post). The session will be recorded and can be watched later using the same Youtube link. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please don't force people to use Zoom. It's probably illegal and has a number of problems. See EPIC, EFF, BoingBoing, Techdirt; find alternatives at FSFE, SFC, FSF. Nemo 08:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Participation is also possible using YouTube. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's also unfree software (requires unfree JavaScript), but I'm talking about forcing people to use Zoom if they want to actually participate rather than observe. Nemo 06:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Participation in the discussion is available through Youtube live chat. Unless someone is a speaker in the presentation, they don't really need to join using Zoom. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Another way to participate in the discussion is using IRC channel #wikimedia-office on --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Report of the presentation, including links to videos: Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Unified brand concept: Interconnection. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  1. Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Oslo_brand_workshop
  2. Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Bengaluru_brand_workshop
  3. Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Online_brand_workshop

Branding trends![edit]

What do you think: is it better to keep a brand logo consistent or remix it with changes in culture? --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I saw some interesting advice about this, a week or two ago, that pointed out that COVID-19 is going to kill a lot of people's parents and grandparents, and will be considered one of the biggest tragedies the world has faced in the modern era. It's probably best to be conservative with branding in a time like this, so as to avoid taking things too lightly. When the time for mourning arrives, it might make sense to participate in that.
I'll also point out that an essential part of our wiki-nature is that we are able to collaborate at a distance, and remain fully functioning. I know that some of my niece and nephew's homeschooling is taking place on Wikipedia, and so something like the Audi branding would be wrong for us. TomDotGov (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's an interesting question, but I don't really know why it's here. Unlike things like broader movement/WMF/affiliate branding which the WMF and affiliates arguably could have some say in, temporary logos (as are displayed in the top-left corner, which is presumably what this is about) are handled entirely by the community and are pretty clearly not a matter of the WMF's concern. (Or, put another way, none of their business.) (As a matter of practice, I think projects have different approaches to temporary logos, but if you want to propose something, go to the relevant talk page.) --Yair rand (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your thoughts! In the Brand Network Facebook group, someone brought up that logos in the linked article serve the public directly, while our projects serve the digital public, so a change in our context might show coming together and supporting rather than distancing. Someone else wrote that “flexibility is a major asset for a logo: being reactive to changes while preserving its visual distinctiveness.” Some thought these changes were interesting, others saw them as tacky.

We mainly posted this for discussion to understand if flexibility with a brand logo is an endorsed value in a brand system especially when that reflects on current events. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I guess that I don't understand where the current events part comes in. I think it's reasonable to want a logo that is flexible in general, just because it's going to be use in a lot of places and contexts. I'm not sure that comes down to "endorsed value", it's more just like... something that is preferable in a design. A nice-to-have. TomDotGov (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The linked CNN article is not about evolution of logos in line with cultural changes, but about temporary logos. You can learn more about such initiatives in Wikimedia at Red, green, and blue and commons:Category:Wikimedia logos variants. Nemo 07:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@TomDotGov Hearing you saying that you agree on it being nice-to-have is what is meant by endorsing here. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Selsharbaty (WMF), Some thought these changes were interesting, others saw them as tacky. Virtue-signalling for corporate profit or "brand-building"? Definitely tacky. I found all the examples in that article were turn-offs for me, and decreased the esteem of the brands in my eyes. Not because they got creative with the logos, but because of what they (ab)used them for.
In more general flexibility terms, Nemo nailed it with Red, Green, and Blue. Yet the WMF separated itself from those colours and changed to an all-black logo. Why did they cut themselves off from the unifying design element that we already had?
— Pelagic (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Liking the distillating idea which allows to escape to stereotypic brand ideas. Hoping it will be a dynamic concept at the end. I just wanted to pay tribute to this truism of Jenny Holzer from the late 1970´s (means far before the beginning of Internet) : "All Things Are Delicately Interconnected". Waltercolor (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

That article says nothing about replacing logos or running temporary logos on the main company or product websites. All the examples are short-lived advertising campaigns featuring modified logos, placed elsewhere (Facebook, Times Square, social media accounts). It’s fine to take inspiration from others' graphic designs but context is important. Pelagic (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unified concept: Interconnection[edit]

Thanks to the 224 attendees who joined the unified concept presentation today! You brought a great stream of comments and questions (averaging 8 per minute!) that helped clarify important points. The project team and Snøhetta presented the unified concept, “interconnection”, arrived at after many community workshops, exercises, and conversations. “Interconnection” distills the 23 distinct concepts generated in workshops into a single word that links together the insights and definitions created from the participants, at the same time generates more meaning as the answer to the question who are we? This concept will not be a public, visible part of branding, but a guiding idea.

Take a look at the video explaining interconnection as a unified concept.

Because participation was so outstanding, we did not get to every question during the 20 minute Q&A session.

Here are the questions we did cover (grouped and consolidated for more efficient answering):
See them answered in the presentation discussion on YouTube.

  • Is this project about a brand for the WMF or the movement? Is it about websites and the Foundation, or more? If it is about the movement, then why does the Board have the final say? And if it is about the movement, how do we formally bring along the affiliates in the process?
  • What does movement-wide feedback look like in this process? How much does the feedback consider internal risks especially to community health and project morale?
  • For the multiple naming approaches next month, might there be a listing of anticipated plusses and minuses, risks and advantages, for different communities in different parts of the world?
  • As the RfC has already indicated that the movement does not consider it acceptable to use the name Wikipedia, why is exploring branding using the Wikipedia name still worth it? Does it concern the branding team that 90% of the respondents in an RFC were against a pivot to a "Wikipedia Foundation" type label, and also is at odds with the KPIs set by the team?
  • If internally, Wikimedians understand Wikimedia as a brand, could it be possible to have the brand demystify Wikimedia? Was pushing the Wikimedia brand with more resources considered? Will any of the naming proposals use the term “Wikimedia”?
  • Was “interconnection” one of the concepts from the workshops or was it a combination of concepts? How did Snohetta narrow down and synthesize the concepts into “interconnection”?

Questions not yet covered:

  • How much is the project/the C-team/the board ready to 'let go' community members, and/or wiki-break, of those who oppose a move to the Wikipedia brand? Some people will vote with their feet.
  • How do we achieve consistent branding if we probably don't achieve a situation when all of us are using one brand around the world (opt-in option)?
  • Who sent the initial email that sparked these changes?
  • I think that the shift to Wikipedia Foundation limits the importance of other projects like Wikidata. What do you think?
  • Does Snøhetta plan to participate on-wiki, or do they see themselves exclusively participating off-wiki for this entire process?
  • If people reject Wikipedia altogether, what is going to change later when we will see how Wikipedia is going to be used in context?
  • We now exercise big efforts to explain to everyone that Wikimedia organizations are NOT "Wikipedia editorial offices". So renaming "Wikimedia" organizations into "Wikipedia" organization will make it much harder. Don't you think trying to solve one big problem will create other big problem?
  • If the naming convention was not already made, why the in this case deceiving name "" and not ""?
  • Why is it that "Wikimedia" could not be included in any future proposal?

The team will be hosting a follow-up office hour on Tuesday from 16:00-17:00 UTC. The session will be recorded and shared. If you have any additional questions you’d like us to answer, feel free to add them here or bring them to the office hour. The participation link will be shared here on Monday. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was watching through the Snøhetta contribution to the talk on Thursday, and I think my reaction is that it doesn't really say very much at all. Here's a transcript of the relevant section, starting with the introduction of the concept, with my comments interspersed. I'm leaving out things that are just playing back something that a Wikimedian said, focusing on the parts that have been introduced by Snøhetta. (My comments and questions are in italicized parenthesis.) First, the video:
The 23 concepts that have been created in the workshops have been unified into one concept: Interconnection. (Why?) Interconnections are mutual connections between two or more things. (This is a definition.) From the smallest interconnections to the bigger picture. (Not bad, especially with the quote and link.) We find interconnections in nature and ecosystems. (Sure.) Interconnections between people, creating something bigger. Interconnections between languages, cultures, and beliefs - enabling us to understand, discuss, contribute, and share knowledge. (Seems reasonable in words, though the pictures are a bit random.) Interconnection.
Next, the explanation:
"So, Interconnection is the unified concept. (That was what the video just said, but sure.) This concept is the combination of the work you have done so far in this process, and we as a team are very happy and enthusiastic about the result of it. (Okay... good to know how you feel, but why is it the result of the process?) We believe the concept will be a great tool moving forward in the design process. (Why do you believe this?) Because interconnection will help us create a design system that is universal and accessible. (How does it do that?) What we are working for is that the result of this design process will become a tool for you all to reach the 2030 goals to continue the work towards becoming an essential infrastructure for knowledge and open up for more people around the world to join the movement and to make knowledge available to all. (This does seem to be a the project goal.) And we believe the concept of interconnection can guide us in this process. (How, and what makes you believe this?) Interconnection will inform and validate the naming system. (Isn't this true of any concept?) The concepts will be a tool to guide us when we're developing the naming system to make sure we acknowledge all the parts of the movement and how they are interconnected. (Again, isn't this true about any concept?) Interconnection will help us answer the question 'who are we'? (Ditto about any concept.) We see interconnection as a tool to clarify who you are as a movement and what you stand for. (Likewise.) Interconnection will ensure the process is guided by you. (How? This wasn't a movement-originated concept, was it?) The most important goal in this process for us has been to open up and invite in for continuous co-creation input, and to continue this now, we'd like you to take part in the current exercise... " (What about the qualities of good movement branding, etc... )
I think I was expecting the reveal of the concept to answer two questions. The first thing was 'How?' - as in, how will this concept be useful in coming up with a naming scheme and the other products this project has to create. When compared to concepts like 'Universe', which would naturally lead to names like 'Wikiverse Foundation', this one doesn't really seem like it'll be all that useful in generating names and designs. I certainly could be wrong here, but Interconnection seems like something it'll be hard to generate names, logos, etc for. The other question is 'Why?' - as in, why was this concept chosen? Why pick 'Interconnection' rather than one of the concepts the community accepted, or any other concept. What about this makes it the best choice for a concept?
I think that these questions could be answerable. I'm wondering if there was a report or something that came along with the concept, that could better clarify what was being presented here? We're six months in with a ton of international travel, and it seems like there hasn't been a lot of progress made towards the actual branding part of this process. I can't help but think that the explanation given would work well with any concept, if you just substitute words in - since I've had a lot of ramen lately, let me try that:
So, Ramen is the unified concept. This concept is the combination of the work you have done so far in this process, and we as a team are very happy and enthusiastic about the result of it. We believe the concept will be a great tool moving forward in the design process. Because ramen will help us create a design system that is universal and accessible. What we are working for is that the result of this design process will become a tool for you all to reach the 2030 goals to continue the work towards becoming an essential infrastructure for knowledge and open up for more people around the world to join the movement and to make knowledge available to all. And we believe the concept of ramen can guide us in this process. Ramen will inform and validate the naming system. The concepts will be a tool to guide us when we're developing the naming system to make sure we acknowledge all the parts of the movement and how they are interconnected. Ramen will help us answer the question 'who are we'? We see ramen as a tool to clarify who you are as a movement and what you stand for. Ramen will ensure the process is guided by you. The most important goal in this process for us has been to open up and invite in for continuous co-creation input, and to continue this now, we'd like you to take part in the current exercise... "
I do think that Interconnection is a better concept than Ramen, but I don't think Snøhetta's presentation said why that is, or why it's better than other choices.
Finally, as someone who's critical of many aspects of this process, I'd like to thank the Foundation project team for their selections of the questions above. I think they're a fair representation of what was asked, at least in the youtube chat. TomDotGov (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Da kann ich nur zustimmen, es gab in der Präsentation ganz viel leeres Marketinggelaber, wolkige Nichtigkeiten, fehlende Begründungen, jedenfalls nachvollziehbare und faktische, kurz: Das, was da vorgestellt wurde, war kaum 1000$ wert, geschweige denn eine halbe Million.
Warum diese 23 "Konzepte" (was um alles in der Welt ist das überhaupt, bzw. soll es in der inhaltsleeren Welt der Marketeers bedeuten?) ausbaldowert wurden, und wie davon auf das neue "Interconnection" (mal schauen, mit was das übersetzt werden wird: Vernetzung, Verbindung oder so) gekommen wurde, wurde nicht nachvollziehbar dargestellt, das war allesamt aus dem Hut gezauberte Phrasen ohne großen Inhalt, und vor allem ohne augenscheinliche Verbindung zum Wikiversum (über das oberflächlich inhaltsleere Phrasendreschen hinaus).
Ja, die Fragen oben sind die, die während der Präsentation auf YouTube und im IRC gestellt wurden, es sind aber auch die Fragen, die teilweise schon seit Monaten gestellt werden, und bislang einer konkreten Antwort harren. Die Grundfrage, warum das Ganze überhaupt derart massiv stattfindet, ob es überhaupt einen Bedarf an einer Umbenennung eines extrem gut funktionierenden Namenssystems geben sollte, wurde bislang noch nie beantwortet. Irgendwer hat vor ein paar Jahren mal diese fixe Idee gehabt, und die hat sich verselbständigt ohne je tatsächlich hinterfragt zu werden, und vor allem ohne je den Souverän dieses Unterfangens hier, die Community, dazu zu fragen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Interconnection Video Copyrights[edit]

I haven't fully formulated my thoughts on Interconnection as a concept yet, but I did just notice that the version of the interconnection video at [1] seems like it's violating copyright. At 37 seconds in, you can find a cropped version of [2], which is listed as copyright The Jim Henson Company. Was this image released into the creative commons at some point? TomDotGov (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Office hour participation details[edit]

We wanted to follow up with participation details for the office hour. It will be held tomorrow 21 April from 1600 to 1700 UTC. You can join us on Google Meet (using this link). This is an OPTIONAL session to answer the questions left from the Unified Concept Presentation last week. It will also be recorded and posted to Wikimedia Commons later. If you have more questions to add to the agenda, please add them to the list above or over the chat during the session. Thank you! --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again something severely off-wiki, some venue, where the normal SUL doesn't work, and you can't even just listen as last time, or join on IRC or something. No only really in the intestines of the data rapist google. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is possible to join without video or a microphone. I don't believe a Google account is required, but I don't know (I've got one set up with this identity anyway, so I'm not concerned about that). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's again off-wiki, so deliberately restricting access by the community. They obviously dislike the community and don't want to be disturbed by them. I'd really like to know, why they avoid the open wiki so much an keep themselves to shady backrooms. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Report of the office hour session, including link to the video: Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/21 April 2020 office hours. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Exercise 3: Visualizing Interconnections![edit]

What do interconnections look like? Find some media files on Wiki Commons or upload your own ones that show interconnections! Exercise #3 is now live and open for submissions until 26 April! --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

See Interconnection visualized by media from Wikimedia Commons in this post. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

A note on visibility[edit]

Hello, a short remark about the Brand project here on Meta. I found it difficult to find e.g. the timetable and other links, when I searched on Meta for "brand". I understand now that this page Brand Network is supposed to serve this page Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project? Maybe there could be some more linking. Kind regards, Ziko (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ziko:, thanks for identifying this and for expanding on it in today's office hour. We have now added links to the 2030 Movement Brand Project in the Brand Network page description, as well as on the description of the talk page. We've also added banners directing to the project on the Wikimedia Brands page and the Brand page. Indeed, this page is now serving the 2030 Movement Brand Project, but it may outlive the project and be a discussion space for future brand work, so we did not want to nestle it in as a subpage. I hope the changes make the relationship clearer. Let me know if there is anything more you'd recommend–it is often hard to identify these things when one spends so long on these pages! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! Ziko (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Brand Architecture for all wiki-projects[edit]

@Selsharbaty (WMF): hello! Thank you for your attention! In my opinion, as a brand manager, I offer rebranding from to (). I follow the Visual identity guidelines. About Brand Architecture. For all Wiki-project brands evolution today may be is a transition from Individual Brands to Family Brand or to monolithic Corporate Brand (Branded House Conception). For simplest example, without icons in the font Hoefler Text:

I will be happy to answer and comment! — Niklitov (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Niklitov:! Those are nice ideas to keep in mind. I'm following up on this over the email. Thanks! --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • + project colors of patterns for brand architecture, see Our projects:

Niklitov (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

May update[edit]

Hi Everyone, here is our update for May!

We are now entering phase two of the Movement Brand Project: Naming Convention Proposals. We know this is the most sensitive and most anticipated phase of the project. It is also a vital moment to receive movement-wide feedback that will then guide phase three: Design System Proposal.

Here’s what to expect: From 7-21 May there will be a movement-wide request for feedback on Naming Convention Proposals. It will begin with a live presentation on 7 May at 15:00 UTC via Youtube Live. During this time we will go through the proposed naming options, how the feedback process will work and have a Q&A. More details to come next week.

What we know so far about the Naming Convention Proposals: There will be multiple ideas for movement naming conventions. Each idea will be broken down to clearly show what the name for the movement, the different types of affiliates, and the Foundation would be under each proposal. Each proposal will also come with a preliminary risk and benefit analysis. Some proposals will rely heavily on Wikipedia, some may not.--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will the status quo be an option? If not, it's not a consultation but an imposition. Nemo 16:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes. At the very least, anything that this project decides needs to be accepted by the Board, which can reject it. TomDotGov (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Is there a description of how the on-wiki feedback process is planned to work? With less than two weeks until the proposals come out, and less than two weeks of discussion scheduled after that, it's important to know where and how the discussion will occur, and how it will be evaluated. This will help avoid the mistakes that were made in evaluating community feedback at the start of this project, and the mistakes that were made in evaluating the RfC. TomDotGov (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
How are you going to inform communities about this feedback collecting process? tufor (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
In wie vielen Sprachen wird die erforderliche Massenmitteilung in sämtlichen Projekten von der Projektgruppe übersetzt, bevor sie überall gepostet wird? Natürlich in den Sprachen der 20 größten Projekte, aber welche anderen Sprachen noch, und welche Sprache wird für welches Projekt ausgewählt? Es wäre zum Beispiel extrem unhöflich in der allemannischen WP Englisch und nicht Deutsch zu wählen, in der korsischen sollte selbstverständlich Französisch genommen werden, wenn schon nicht Korsisch selber geht, usw. Und natürlich muss diese Mitteilung in sämtlichen Projekten mindestens 2-3 Wochen vor dem Start der Projektes erfolgt sein, verantwortlich dafür sind allein die bezahlten Projektmitarbeiter. Der Community, die ja sowieso schon ihr deutliches Missfallen an diesem gesamten Unterfangen zum Ausdruck gebracht hatm kann dies nicht übergebügelt werden, und ohne eine solche vollständige und adäquate Information ist das alles für die Katz, weil eben nicht alle beteiligt wurden, sondern nur die kleine anglozentrische Ingroup. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Als jij geen duits praat, mischien op nederlands (tenminste probeer ik mijn best): In hoe veele taalen zou het op iedere project von de heele Wikiversum worden bekent gemaakt? Het zouden tenminste de taalen van de 20 grootste projecten zijn, maar ook nog enkele meer. Engels is niet de alijnige taal van de Wikiversum, het mag niet allein gebruikt worden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I know the people discussing here have seen it, but I wanted to close the loop that our 1 May update covered details about the on-wiki process and informing communities. We have been exploring massmessaging and CentralNotice and have settled on using CentralNotice based on the feedback we got, to eliminate redundancy. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Preparing for feedback on naming convention proposals[edit]

Hi everyone! Latest update: The live presentation of the naming convention proposals on 7 May will now be at 17:00 UTC (originally scheduled for 15:00 UTC) on Youtube Live. We hope to see you there!

Also, in preparation for the feedback period on the naming convention proposals (from 7 May to 21 May), the Project Team has shared some additional details about how the feedback process will work. Please let us know if you have any questions!--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wie wird dieser massive Eingriff in das Wikiversum in sämtlichen Projekten des Wikiversums in einer den jeweiligen Projekten angemessenen Sprache, also nicht nur ein englischer Spam ohne jedes Nachdenken und Aufwand, sondern eine angemessene Mitteilung in mindestens 25-30 Sprachen? Verantwortlich dafür sehe ich alleine diejenigen, die dieses Projekt unter Einsatz von massiven Geldmitteln und Personalaufwand hier weiter betreiben. Da dies bislang vor allem ein Top-Down-Projekt war und ist, ist auch Top alleine für die Informationen verantwortlich, auch für die Angemessene Übersetzung dieser Information, und kann dies nicht einfach an die Community auslagern. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Sänger: Replied to your comment in the original post. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

As an FYI, the feedback period is being rescheduled so that the best possible naming options can be presented for community review. For details, see the post on the project talk page. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Brand discussion: Wikimedia brands in popular culture[edit]

How have you seen Wikipedia or other Wikimedia brands show up in pop culture? This could be in movies, TV shows, music, art, comedy - anything.
Some initial finds:

What are some examples you have come across? --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looking at these references can help us understand how the world sees the Wikimedia brands and what they are currently communicating or not communicating. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
ELappen, not sure if you're still looking for examples, but xkcd has a bunch of comics on Wikipedia. Here are some of the better ones: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Best, Vermont (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Love these, Vermont. I had seen a handful of them, but never this gem, which is now my favorite. I find xkcd examples especially cool and relevant in that they explain the complexity/humor/hard work that happens on the projects in a way that people outside the movement can understand.
On the Brand Network Facebook group, 46 comments were posted responding to this question, with examples from different parts of the world including this song in Hindi and this song from Sweden. The biggest general trends the different examples point to, in my opinion, were: 1) a turn away from the cracks about Wikipedia's reliability that were fairly common 5-10 years ago in Western countries, to references to Wikipedia as not only an online authority but a general authority validating the significance of a person or a topic 2) general proliferation of popular culture references in other regions, mostly related to Wikipedia as an authority. This suggests a growth of awareness and significant shift in popular perception. A follow-up question emerged about references to "Wiki" to refer to Wikipedia in popular culture. Anecdotal examples were given from Arabic communities as well as Nigeria, but concrete examples were limited. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
ELappen: Our projects are also being used in television shows, though likely not entirely intentionally in that instance. The reputation of Wikipedia has definitely changed, especially as the English Wikipedia has developed to a point where every article created by an inexperienced editor tends to go through both AfC and NPP, passing in front of two experienced editors before being approved and indexed in search engines. The quality control is outstanding compared to that of our smaller projects, or the English Wikipedia 10 years ago. There's also been a lot of press about Wikipedia, not necessarily from a popular culture standpoint; Vice/Motherboard, Wired, New York Times, and Haaretz come to mind as publications with some employees/writers who focus significant amounts of their work on Wikimedia projects. Vermont (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Vermont, the unintended reference that gets called out after-the-fact is always great. Reminds me of an experience I think is familiar to a lot of Wikipedians, which Basak from trwiki describes in the opening of her recent WikiHerStory profile. Regarding quality control, accuracy, and press that helps raise awareness about it, this video/article from this past Sunday is a pretty good example, although it does feel in this case like the press is just catching up to the shifting public perception of the brand, rather than affecting it. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
ELappen: The great motivator of changing public perceptions on Wikipedia is individuals viewing our articles, experiencing the extensive, well-sourced, and relevant content, and retaining that feeling, going on to spread that perception to others. Like with most well-known products, much of what composes it's public perception derive from individuals who have used it first-hand. The difference with Wikipedia, a very remarkable difference, is that we do not require payment, hosted sites are devoid of ads, gathered data is not sold or used for commercial purposes, the non-profit that facilitates development upholds the standard of free knowledge on our sites and promotes it elsewhere, and, perhaps most importantly of all, participation in mapping the sum of all human knowledge is open to everyone on this planet and outside of it regardless of class, gender, background, or other characteristics. Wikipedia doesn't require fancy branding, news sites don't have to write about it, and movies don't have to mention it. Wikipedia is the cemented cornerstone of the great diaspora of knowledge which historians will undoubtedly mark as a keynote of the early twenty-first century, not because of marketing or image in the press, but because volunteers collectively and regularly give vast swathes of our free time to providing the best product at the best price: millions of reliable articles, entirely free. Vermont (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Vermont Well said! It's a remarkable, grassroots project that has become a cornerstone of knowledge thanks to the nearly two decades of work of the hundreds of thousands of volunteers that have built the project and thus built and upheld the brand. It is highly recognized and highly regarded not because the news covers it or because it is mentioned in popular culture, but rather it is covered and referenced because it is a cultural cornerstone, and the coverage can reinforce, challenge, reflect, advance etc. If press had no effect at all, we certainly wouldn't have a press team devoted to supporting accurate and constructive coverage of the projects, but that's neither here nor there :) Looking at popular culture and other references helps us take a temperature of impressions and associations at any given moment, so it's fun to see how it's evolved. Thanks for your examples and thoughts on this! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@ELappen (WMF): Very belated, and going off-topic, but: We have a press team? Who's on it? Wikimedia Foundation Press team and Press team are both redlinks. It would be good to have some documentation on this. --Yair rand (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Yair rand: The employees in charge of press (with press as their primary or secondary responsibilities) sit on the Communications team within the Communications Department, hence the redlinks. I think having press sit on a larger comms team is fairly standard, although I'm not sure. I suppose I could have said "we certainly wouldn't have press employees" rather than "a press team" for more accuracy, since it's not technically a team name :) --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update on naming convention proposal discussions[edit]

Hi all, Just a note to let you know that we have posted an update about the naming convention proposals and the discussion period on the project talk page. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kind thanks, ELappen. As an aside, if someone could link the unanswered questions above to places in the FAQ where they have been answered, that would be helpful. [at least the ones that are not now in the past] –SJ talk  23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi there SJ. The remaining questions were answered in the 21 April office hour, but a lot of them are in the past, as you've stated. Working on text now to update of the main project FAQ with all the most recent information from this past week. This should be available tomorrow. At the end of the week, I'll also upload this week's office hours to Commons and prepare another report similar to the one linked here for those interested. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks. I find it helpful to enumerate questions as you did -- and then to explicitly note, for questions not answered, what their status is (Will get to it later; answered previously; don't know; mu; too polite to answer; too off-topic to answer; &c). This makes it clear that any questions with no status at all are simply new/uncategorized, and worth asking about again. –SJ talk  16:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Office hour week of 22 June, extending survey response period[edit]

Hi everyone, The Brand Project team will be hosting a general office hour this week to answer the remaining questions from last week's presentation, as well as take other questions live. The office hours will be recorded and made available after.

We also had one today which was posted to the project talk page and naming talk page, but I was late in posting it here, apologies! The recording will be uploaded to Commons shortly.

Additionally, in response to a number of requests, the survey will now remain open until 7 July. Looking forward to seeing some of you tomorrow. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Brand architecture proposal[edit]

Wikimedia Brand Strategy 2020 presentation

Dear colleagues, Nikolai and me elaborated a complex proposal regarding possible evolution of the Wikimedia branding. It may be found here: c:File:Wikimedia_Brand_Strategy_2020.pdf - we tried to take in account objections and ideas arisen during numerous Wikimedia community discussions (including the one idea above), and modern trends in corporate branding as well. We understand that our proposal is not seamless, and it departs far from what was formed by the rebranding team, but we believe it's worth considering. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @user:Drbug! Thank you so much to both you and Nikolai for taking the time to put together this proposal! The idea of trying to achieve a visual unity in a high communicative brand system is indeed impressive!
While we all share the value in using the "W" in our brand system and and having it as a centerpoint for the new brand system was considered by the design partner earlier, legal concerns rose around protecting such a commonly used character.
Your proposal is of great value to our team, and while we are taking the time to read through it, I wanted to let you know we are also including it as feedback on naming and one of the further naming suggestions to be considered. Thank you so much again, and please reach out to us with any questions. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply