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.

Links to discussions in the projects[edit]

Community feedback and straw poll[edit]

Community discussions on branding[edit]

Polls and RfCs as of 17:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Straw Poll Agree Disagree Other Agree %
(Q1) Include the status quo 228 1 2 99%
(Q2) Name of the Foundation 5 206 3 2%
(Q3) Name of the Movement 8 182 8 4%
RfC Support Oppose Other Support %
Wikimedia should use Wikipedia as name 46 540 4 8%
Other as of 20:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Open letter (more stats) Affiliates Non-Affiliates Community members Total entities
Pause or stop renaming 73 5 994 1072


Straw Poll Meta-Comments[edit]

Would anyone be opposed to moving this poll to a transcluded sub-page? We're getting a lot of diversity of people, and that might make it harder to follow longer-form discussion on this talk page. TomDotGov (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: I'm agreed. This was good as first start, but separate page will be better. --Kaganer (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
+1, seems to be a good idea. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
You have my blessing. :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Tried to do it, but it triggered a rule about too many Emoji. It looks like we'll need an admin to do it for us. TomDotGov (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was successful: Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community feedback and straw poll (with a redirect from Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community feedback and straw poll. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Update from the Ad hoc Brand Committee[edit]

Hello all, as you may recall, the Board of Trustees decided to pause the Brand project till March and has created an Ad hoc Brand Committee that was tasked with preparation for the 'unpause moment'. The Committee started its work by setting up goals and have decided that in order to efficiently prepare for the 'unpause moment', it would helpful to have input from the community throughout that internal process. Therefore a call for Community Advisors was sent at the end of November, with a deadline at the end of Jan 2021, requesting advisors from 4 categories of representation: 2 from Affiliates, 2 who participated in writing the COLOR letter, 2 (or more) from emerging communities / less represented communities, and 1 from AffCom.

All categories sent representatives (with one exception, the India Community). All representatives were added to the Committee on the first week of Feb and they are:

  • Lucy Crompton-Reid - from the UK, chosen by Affiliates' EDs group
  • Megan Wacha - from the USA, chosen by the Affiliates Chairs group
  • Richard Knipel - from the USA, representing those who participated in writing the COLOR letter
  • Phoebe Ayers - from the USA, representing those who participated in writing the COLOR letter
  • João Alexandre Peschanski - From Brazil, chosen by the Brazilian community
  • Justice Okai-Allotey - from Ghana, chosen by the Wiki Indaba group
  • Rachmat Wahidi - from Indonesia, chosen by the ESEAP group
  • Erlan Vega Rios - from Bolivia, chosen by the Iberocoop group
  • Jeffrey Keefer - from the USA, representing AffCom

The Community Advisors joined the Committee for 2 online sessions on Feb 8th & Feb 15th, and advised the Committee on making a clear case for Brand changes, as well as on the future process (at the 'unpause moment') and next steps. The Committee has taken into account the rich conversations that took place and will present its recommendations to the full Board in the coming week, during the Feb 23-25 Board meetings. An update on the full Board's decision will follow, including next steps. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shani (WMF): A minor correction here - it's the Foundation's contribution to the Brand Project that's been 'unpaused'. The community has accomplished quite a bit while the Foundation's contributions were stopped, like closing the RfC and updating the project to take it the result into account. I hope that when the Foundation resumes public participation, it respects what the community has done. Otherwise, we're going to get right back into the cycle of failure, and that isn't a productive use of anyone's time. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 00:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Is there any update about the work that has been done by the Ad Hoc Advisors, and what steps has been taken by the Brand Committee so far? Thanks, RamzyM (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

7th point[edit]

There is a bit of an edit war between some from the branding team, who want to water down the absolute clear rejection of the use of Wikipedia for anything but Wikipedia, and the community, i.e. the bosses of this whole enterprise here. Unless the branding team can reach a consensus for any change on the other side, they must not edit anything against the community. They are not the bosses here, but servants. The current version is as far as possible bended towards there bias, more would be a sever distortion of the reality. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add something like "though not adopted [recognized?] by the WMF Brand team", if the team would consider that an accurate reflection of their position? --Yair rand (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The point of the principles/criteria is to provide ways of evaluating proposed branding. I don't see how the project could move forwards if the Foundation isn't respecting the outcome of the RfC. I think it's probably better to have the debate over the 7th principle after the Foundation resumes participation (if that isn't already happening), and have the debate on the merits. "This criteria exists, but the Foundation isn't respecting it" seems like an unstable and unproductive outcome - the Foundation would be evaluating potential brands under one set of rules, the community another, and we'd get unacceptable proposals like "Wikipedia Foundation" again.
I don't think the RfC's outcome has to be a criteria, but I think that the community will treat it like one regardless, and so it's better to just make it one to keep everyone on the same page. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 14:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Historical?[edit]

Is there any update about the Foundation resuming participation? Or should the community take the initiative in marking this as a failed project? There hasn't been any progress for the past year or so, other than the RfC close and the introduction of the 7th point. Apart from the Principles of Good Movement Branding, it doesn't seem like there's a lot to be salvaged here, and so it might be better to simply mark this as historical, rather than having it float around in limbo. TomDotGov (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)