Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project

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

A space to discuss the 2030 movement brand project. Add new topics below...

Unintended positive consequences of current brand strategy[edit]

Having followed- and gotten lost in many discussions about this (while I could've probably been more productive working on something else) - something that I would like to see more considered and academic formal comment on, is comparisons to similar "complex" brands - perhaps treating "The Internet" as a brand, or brands with a long tail of non-primary focuses - or brands where the long tail, tilted 90 degrees, is far taller than the common focus (such as many FOSS projects' users' focuses), or perhaps even the perceptions of certain cities, or countries. This points to two unintended consequences - 1) brand discussion not being about brand, but about Wikimedia's processes and the perception and testing of those - has anything useful been learned here, so far? Who is picking up the baton here and making sure that this gets taken where it needs to go. 2) The unintended consequence of the Wikimedia banner - and the common process for engaging with it. For example, in my opinion, the clear message from the current brand is: "Other projects can also be like Wikipedia". This could open the door to possibility. It can also set expectations about how interacting with the brand will be: simple or complex. It might also select for those who are more willing to engage in more than just the superficial - this might impact the load on moderators and other well studied but poorly coordinated and managed things such as dealing with edit wars or perceptions about bias. In short, this might not be about a name at all, but a "health check" - and a blessing in disguise. But I'm no expert on the topic, and I would like to hear where the brand experts stand on this - perhaps experts who specialize in community projects or projects where intellectual property, ownership and captive audiences are not concerns, but where things like organic growth and self-governance are more relevant. Thanks for reading. Dagelf 13:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: from the FAQ - I think the FAQ is essential reading and a good intro. More comments:
What motivates the effort to change the movement brand system?
I think it's fair to say that everyone supports the goal. But why change the whole thing if it's just a problem in some countries? Why not just make it a cosmetic opt-in - and recommended change, in those countries? Also, how did things evolve over time? Is it truly and apples-to-apples comparison to compare countries with the economic development of the US as of 70 years ago, with the modern US? Maybe things will evolve naturally if we give it another 10-20 years, like it did in the first place?
Will it be confusing to use Wikipedia for things that are not an online encyclopedia project? Yes, at first. That’s where we need your help to develop naming conventions that show how things relate. We need to make new names that reduce confusion and explain how things connect!
Sounds exactly like things are now. Except now people have to unlearn what they had already learned... and that sounds more complex. This FAQ item needs examples if it wants to carry legitimacy. Dagelf 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dagelf, indeed the new brand system will be opt-in for Wikimedia affiliations who are critical participants in this projects as they use Wikimedia brands today. This presentation can explain how the idea behind this project developed.

In regards to the brand discussion not being about brand but process. We believe that by understanding Wikimedia’s processes and our global perception we are learning about our brand and how it could evolve. It has also helped us create a collaborative process to be able to create the new identity system with Wikimedian’s who choose to be involved.

We appreciate your input trying to help us with the challenges we are facing with this project and we would like to invite you to join the brand network, the community group helping with this project.--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Selsharbaty (WMF): The WMF's "brand network" is not a community group. Community activities happen on-wiki, not in the WMF's playground or on commercial social networks. (Aside: The fact that the rejected proposal is still being referred to as though it's inevitable is troubling.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Wikimedia communities discuss their projects in many places. That includes on wiki, on social media channels, on calls and in person. We would like to be as available as possible and are happy to be where Wikimedians are. That is why we are using many channels and will continue to. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Selsharbaty (WMF):What's that supposed to mean: Join the brand network on Wikimedia Space and Facebook.
If I follow the first link, which is at least somehow peripheral inside the Wikiverse, I get a message, that I must not see anything, that's something explicitly anti-wiki, as everything has to be in the full open.
The Facebook page is an absolute no-go. Facebook is evil, Facebook is the very opposite of privacy, Facebook blahblah has no value at all in regard of anything within the Wikiverse.
So: Why do you post this useless links, that pretend to be some involvement possibility on the other side at all? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger: You can see the group discussions once you join. You can create an account on Wikimedia Space if you don’t have one and request to join the group. All requests are being approved. I understand that you and others may not like Facebook, and that’s why we wanted to have several options for people. Comments shared on Wiki are also being included in the process.--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is the "dicussion" closed at all on Wikimedia Space? I fail to see a single reason for such exclusive and elitist behaviour. And regarding your last sentence Comments shared on Wiki are also being included in the process: On-wiki has not only to be included. it has by definition of the Wikiverse be the centre, and things from outside the Wikiverse may be included. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I finally decided to take a peek inside this anti-wikimedian closed shop, and....found nothing of substance. It's not only a hidden, closed backroom, it's as well pretending to be some discussion venue. There where 7 (in words: seven) threads in this part, with a total of 45 posts. I would not consider this as anything of substance. I don't know about the facebook stuff, as I won't sink that deep to go to this extremely anti-privacy enterprise, but anything theris by definition simply nothing. Facebook blahblah must not be considered at all as any input. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Adopt and advance brand"[edit]

Hi. What does "Adopt and advance brand" mean specifically? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:MZMcBride, “Adopt and advance brand” is the phase of this project when the new brand system will be implemented and up for community groups to adopt and use. We will be building tools with our design partner to help make it easier, we’ll know more about that when we’re closer to that stage. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC on the Foundation referring to itself as Wikipedia[edit]

Because the community consultation apparently did not include this question, and to the extent that it may have been implied, the proposals did not achieve majority support, I have created Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia. EllenCT (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Selsharbaty (WMF) and ZMcCune (WMF): In normal projects in the Wikiverse the RfC would have been closed by now as SNOWBALL, how long will the WMF wait to bury this unwanted project? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment on naming as «Wikipedia»[edit]

I find it a bit weird that the subject page just claim this as a defined and set goal, and then goes on with a process for achieving that goal. This is cookbook for a real clash with the communities, especially for those projects that isn't «Wikipedia». 20:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add links to the documents created so far[edit]

Please add links to the documents, such as the one implied by "Summarize findings from brand strategy community consultation", that are funded by our donor dollars and are of interest to people who would like to follow this process. Thanks. Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Here you go. The link was already there at the bottom of the page and we have added it to the mentioned section. Hope that helps. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Snøhetta seems a commercial company with a website that shows a blank page when javascript is blocked. Are we giving money to an evil company? We have enough volunteers to not have to pay commercial parties for marketing nonsense. And branding strategy is also not important: fire everyone who gets payed to do it. Zanaq (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


Why host this discussion on a platform with security and privacy values completely antithetical to those of the Movement? Is this foreshadowing where the brand project is intended to take the Movement? Jagspecx (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jagspecx. We do agree on that. That's why there are several project pages with discussion pages on meta, there is a discussion group on Wikimedia Space and there is this group on FB. We do believe that Wikimedia projects should be our main hub for this project and that's why most of the project documentation is on meta.
There was a need for the community group working on this project to have a space that is more open to exchanging ideas, photos, even jokes and being a way to get to more people. We have started this group on Facebook and the community used it in addition to other social media platforms to share their thoughts.
We have also used other tools to communicate about the project including the foundation news (AKA the Wikimedia blog), emails, video conference, movement mailing lists, in-person visits to affiliates and community groups, and conferences.
Using any platform to communicate about this project doesn't mean it is the only open channel for you to share your thoughts.
Hope that helps!--Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Everything not on-wiki has far less value, as it's extremely excluding people with a wee bit of consciousness. I would never dare to open an account on something as untrustworthy as Facebook, no, Facebook Blahblah is something to be completely ditched, it has no value at all, it's explicitly anti-wiki to use it for anything about the wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Will you stop wasting money once the expected outcome of the RfC is fixed?[edit]

There never was any value for this at all, but now you know that nearly nobody outside a detached circle of functionaries with no contact to the projects sees this as a good idea. When will you stop investing any more money in this DOA project? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It may indeed make more sense to invest that money in preventing things like these. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC in Timeline[edit]

The request for comment on 'Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia' is one of the clearest expressions of support and opposition as to a potential name change for the Wikimedia Foundation. So far, over 350 users have commented, many with reasoned arguments for and against the proposed changes. Regardless of the outcome, this is an important - probably the most important - source of opinion as to the change. Removing it from the timeline provides readers with a less complete view of the process, both now and from a historical perspective - when the RfC ends and the link up top is removed, without an entry in the timeline there will be no reference to the RfC from this project page.

User:CKoerner (WMF)'s removal of the link hurts the movement, as it makes this page less useful. TomDotGov (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey TomDotGov, I'm aware of the importance of the RfC and there is far more work ahead of us. The comments there are insightful to help guide understanding as we continue through the brand project. I don't want to erase it or anything, I just don't think it belongs in a section defining the scope of the project as defined by foundation work laid out in the annual plan. It's one community initiative informed by the project. Perhaps we can come to agreement for a more encompassing section? Perhaps one where we include other community discussions? I'm helping the brand project by bringing some clarity to what is documented. I will be updating the project page over the coming week with more information - partially informed by the discussions in the RfC. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@User:CKoerner (WMF): Is there a description of the "scope of the project as defined by the foundation work laid out in the annual plan"? At least according to the description on this page, one of the roles of the movement in this plan is "Comments on proposed naming, design, and brand elements to highlight concerns, needs, and suggested improvements". The RfC is how the community is accomplishing this. I don't see any reason why this sort of movement activity should be excluded from the timeline, given that the movement is one of the stakeholders in this project. (I'd also expect that anything Snøhetta does would be added to this page.) TomDotGov (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@User:CKoerner (WMF): Could you understand why your removal of this high response RfC from the project timeline with the summary redundant and not part of planned project timeline (link) might come across to the many people who contributed to it as we at the WMF only care about community input when it suits us? This may not be a WMF planned RfC, but it's there now and whatever one might say, it has unmistakingly become a significant part of the discussion. Is strictly adhering to the planned procedure really more important than transparacy? Shouldn't this RfC at least be clearly mentioned in the timeline, if only for historical reasons? Regards, Wutsje (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
When I said redundant I meant as it was already mentioned at the top of the page. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. I noticed that, but what will happen once the RfC is closed? If your updating the project page over the coming week with more information - partially informed by the discussions in the RfC will contain a clear link to this RfC, then all is fine with me. Wutsje (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for not pinging earlier Wutsje. I'll be sure to include a link to the RfC. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF):The RfC is imho currently the most important venue here, as without a clear consensus by the community for a rebranding, no rebranding can happen at all. So currently it looks like all efforts of rebranding were futile, as they are met with nearly no support by the highest entity in the Wikiverse, the community. How will you put this RfC on the front page, if not there? It definitely belongs exactly there. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC) OK, I just saw, it's on the top already, fine, but it's well en important part of the timeline, as it defines, whether any more work can be done at all.

Snøhetta exercise #1: What does free knowledge mean to you?[edit]

Snøhetta invites volunteers to share what free knowledge means to each of us in their first open exercise: These exercises will happen periodically in key moments throughout the process. The results will be publicly summarized and will be used to shape the next steps. Feel free to leave feedback with them directly through the site, or to post your answers here. We will ensure they see responses to their exercises posted on-wiki. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Is a page under full control of Wikimedia, or is it outside the Wikiverse and thus irrelevant?
And what does Snøhetta say about being banned on enWP for sockpuppeteering?
Why do you go on with this at all, even though it's clear that the community overwhelmingly rejected this, and the community is after all the highest entity in the Wikiverse?
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Will the responses be exported as open data and preserved somewhere on the Wikimedia sites after this website is archived? I note that there is no copyright waiver before submission, which is problematic: «Note: Responses will be used to inform the concept and design of our collected brand system». (What's a "collected system" by the way?) Nemo 11:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The limitation to at tweet-like 280 characters, and the lack of community usernames seems like it will limit the usefulness of the website. So, I'll reply here without those limitations. TomDotGov (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I've answered over there, but it isn't published yet, that's a very anti-wiki behaviour. Everything must be in the full open, deleting anything must be done as well in rhe full open. Some stuff may be hidden from public for some reawsons, but that hiding has to be done es well in the open. Everything not in the open is not valid. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Replies to be posted to Snøhetta[edit]

Knowledge is probably the easier half of the sentence - it's something like "verifiable information". The precise definition of what that means varies from project-to-project, as Wikisource might verify the knowledge comes from a book in question, while Wikipedia verifies it's correctness. Still, I think there's fundamentally that core of verifiable information that makes knowledge knowledge.

As for freedom, there are two aspects to it. There's free-as-in-beer - we make everything we do available to everyone in the world without cost. But more importantly, there is free-as-in-freedom. The idea that there aren't gatekeepers, that our websites are wikis that anyone that shares our goals can edit is at the core of our DNA. We've decide - and shown - that the best way to get that verifiable information is to let people edit the encyclopedia, make changes, and through a process of slow improvement become one of the biggest collections of verifiable information in the world.

Probably the most important part of this is there is no single person or organization (especially not the foundation) that is in charge of the content or Wikipedia and the other wikis, and as a free knowledge project, there could not be such a body. It's important that any brand system not mislead by conflating the foundation with individual projects, like Wikipedia. I'm sure the members of Snøhetta can observe this at work as part of this process - earlier in this process, information was presented that made it seem like the editor community was in favor of using 'Wikipedia' in the name of the foundation. As time went by, this was corrected to the show that the editing community is between 3:1 and 10:1 against, and always has been. This is an example of our free knowledge movement working, here on meta - rather than having a central body that can insist on something being presented, we work together to verify the information and correct it when it was misleading. TomDotGov (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Podcast with the Director of Brand[edit]

Last week I got to do a podcast with User:ZMcCune (WMF) about the brand project. You’ll find it on Wikimedia Commons, or on Wikipediapodden if you prefer regular podcast players. Ainali (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, the user seems to be a bit shy to take part in the discussions here, he obliviously likes the closed shop over there without community involvement better. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Case studies[edit]

Hi there. Thank you for the effort on working on the brand project; I think this is an exciting process. As I read through the FAQ, I was wondering if research to compile other cases of name changes was conducted. Research outputs that are mentioned in the brand project, at least from what I have skimmed through (i.e, report to the BT or the section on qualities of good movement branding), rest upon community insights --from affiliates and individual editors--, and though these outputs are of course relevant they might not be enough to inform and support the name-change project. A critical account of actual documented name changes in the real world, identifying from these cases what worked well and what did not work so well, might contribute to providing a real-world sense of how these changes occur. I know we are a very specific case (collaborative, global...) --but what organization is not after all?--, but to look at other experiences might be beneficial in any case to provide inputs on reasons for change, to help come up with strategies to reduce transition costs and to deal with community/consumer resistance, and establish a smooth process of name change. Maybe this was answered elsewhere; sorry if I have missed it. --Joalpe (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)