Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for discussions related to the Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project page.

  Please remember to:


  Archives: 1 2 3

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg


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 2020-08-02 10:45 UTC)
Straw Poll Agree Disagree Other Agree %
(Q1) Include the status quo 223 1 2 99%
(Q2) Name of the Foundation 5 201 3 2%
(Q3) Name of the Movement 8 178 8 4%
RfC Support Oppose Other Support %
Wikimedia should use Wikipedia as name 46 532 4 8%
Other (as of 2020-08-02 10:45 UTC)
Open letter (more stats) Affiliates Non-Affiliates Community members Total entities
Pause or stop renaming 72 5 938 1015


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)

June 26th/27th Changes[edit]

There's a second board update on branding, followed up by a wikimedia-l email by Zack McCune that says:

We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with communities. We invite your perspectives.

I'm interpreting this to mean that new branding options are going to be developed, and I'm hoping this means those options will be developed in conjunction with the community. Would it be possible to clarify what's planned, especially in terms of shared spaces like this page and the FAQ? TomDotGov (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am interpreting this as another red herring. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Cart before the horse[edit]

The WMF wants to rename itself, and is asking people to vote for the new name they like best. But this is premature, because they have failed to make the case for renaming themselves. Yes, they have produced this "2030 brand report", but it is self-servicing. The board commissioned the report because they wanted the renaming, and ta da! — they got what they wanted. I suppose it's possible that the rename recommendation was unanticipated. If so, why must we wholeheartedly believe this one report and rush to implement it, especially while common sense says that it is unnecessary and so many say it is unadvisable? Calling it the Wikipedia Organization or whatever doesn't enhance the brand, it confuses it. Senator2029 13:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Chapters naming[edit]

Despite opinions on the rebranding in general splitted in Wikimedia RU, we still consensually agree that all proposed titles are problematic for Wikimedia RU.

First, two prerequisites:

  1. main title of the Russian organization should be in Russian;
  2. it's not possible to use "Russia" for most organizations in Russia.
  • Wikipedia Network RU - Википедия Нетворк РУ / Сеть Википедия РУ / Сеть Википедии РУ - all three Russian adaptations look bizzare; "network" doesn't work as either translation or transliteration. Also they all sound foreign.
  • Wikipedia organization RU - Википедия Организейшн РУ / Организация Википедии РУ / Организация Википедии РУ - the first adaptation sounds obnoxiously foreign, non-Russian. Others two would not accepted by the authorities.
  • Wikipedia Foundation RU - Фонд Википедия РУ - this would be acceptable only if Wikimedia RU is converted into foundation. In theory it is possible, but it is not a membership form of NGOs, and it would impose significant burden.

We suppose that organizations in some other countries might have similar problems too. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is great feedback, thanks for adding it here, Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko). Feedback is being used to eliminate things that don't work and refine, so this type of information is really useful. In starting to review the survey data, it's evident across multiple contexts that Foundation won't work in affiliate naming, even if some groups did like the horizontality of a name that mirrors the Foundation's name. Association has been offered multiple times as more workable, but other ideas are coming out of the survey too. In terms of organization and the translation/transliteration of network into Russian, I've just checked and it looks like the affiliate survey data we have from Russian-speaking groups is also not favorable for network or organization, although without the same context. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

An example of tone deafness[edit]

So, here's something from a presentation apparently given here. I'll ignore its overall tone of "Well, forget the community, they don't know what they're talking about and they'll like it sooner or later anyway." (Though that is unacceptable.) But here's an excellent example of the utter tone-deafness that's happened with this project. On page 82, regarding Snohetta, under the heading "Understanding of Wikimedia ethos" it states:

Snohetta sees design as a tool to welcome, invite, and celebrate shared cultural experiences. They respect the “singular in the plural” and cherish how Wikimedia culture is both “anarchistic and democratic.” Looking to make visible Wikimediaʼs global community, they set out a plan to collaborate openly on naming and design in ways that would terrify a conventional branding agency. They want to do branding in a “wiki” way.

Except, folks: Snohetta spams our projects and uses sockpuppets to do so, see here. To be dealing with them at all is insulting, but to say that about them in light of that is a slap in the face. I guess they understand our projects so well that they don't realize we prohibit spamming, block evasion, and the use of sockpuppets? Seraphimblade (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning about misleading slides.[edit]

I added a warning about the slides the foundation's Brand Project Team presented to the Board being misleading. A few of the more obvious ways:

  • There are no statistics about pageviews or editor retention from after 2015.
  • The board comments on Page 37 are cherry-picked.
  • The map on Page 57 is misleading, as it highlights counties like Canada, Russian, Brazil, Australia, and China that didn't actually share any feedback.
  • Page 82 reads like a Snohetta ad. It's not clear that experience with Architecture translates to branding, and it's pretty clear that now that we've seen what Snohetta did, it's nothing like the "wiki" way.
  • Page 91 is really bad:
    • Unlike the RfC where the participants evaluated their own responses, there's no indication what the 705 participants think about branding.
    • 1,300 visits and 1,200 endorsements are meaningless numbers when compared to people.
    • Both of these are repeats of the mistake Heather apologized for, which was confusing participation in a process with endorsement.
    • This is especially true when juxtaposing them with the RfC.

These are just some of the ways in which these slides are misleading. I'm not sure what the right thing to do about this is, other than to warn readers, and potentially prevent a corrected version next to the version presented to the Board. TomDotGov (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with many of these points (that "1200 endorsements" bit is exceptionally problematic), but I think the warning can't be limited to just saying it's misleading without any further explanation. A link to the talk page would make sense, I think, along with more expansive wording. (Presentations like these are getting more and more common from the WMF in general, and it's clear that many no longer feel any compunctions against creating deliberately biased or disingenuous reports. I'm starting to think that we need a standard system for labelling such WMF statements.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I've linked this discussion, and I'd be happy with any wording that makes the problem clear. I just think it's better to get the warning that the slides are misleading up as soon as possible. TomDotGov (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel its hard to judge a presentation with just the slides. So much depends on the context that the speaker puts the individual slide into. I too don't think its really an accurate representation of the oppose side. However its kind of unfair to expect anyone to unilaterally come up with a fair assesment of someone they disagree with (perhaps this still is the fault of brand team for accepting the task of unilaterally summarizing the debate instead of somehow collaborating with the opposition to come up with something both sides think is fair). I'm willing to give some benefit of the doubt here that brand team at least tried to summarize the opposition, even if they didn't quite "get it". Bawolff (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that the slides were posted to the wiki without further context, like speakers notes - and so the potential to mislead exists. It's not like it wasn't clear from the time this presentation was first conceived that it would be posted publicly.
I'll use the map on Page 57 as an example - it has the problem that it geographically weights countries, as if a country with more landmass is more important than a smaller country. It also colors countries where some affiliate responded blue, just like countries where no affiliate responded. That image was once all over the place, but it's been taken down for being misleading - but now it's back up.
Page 65. Heather Walls apologized for that on February 17th. It took almost a month (to March 14th) to get that misleading information corrected - and it took me editing the report to get it fixed.
Maybe context changes things, but neither the community the board asked to review these slides nor the members of future boards of directors will have been given that context. TomDotGov (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh i definitely don't disagree there are issues. The not-to-scale graph on page 90 in particular annoys me, all the more so because its so minor, why wouldnt they just make it to scale, especially in the current political context? Comes across all the more tone deaf because of how small it is. I also can't help but feel in the various slides about "mistakes" that they fail to understand why it was a mistake and are mostly sorry they got caught. Bawolff (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Were the results of the survey ever posted anywhere? Bawolff (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

i found https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-August/095390.html which suggests no. So i guess i'm wondering why? I assumed the implication of Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board Update on Branding: next steps was that survey results would be released after the july 28 meeting (but i suppose it is ambigious). Regardless it seems like the survey closed a while ago so i'm wondering what the hold up is. Bawolff (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Bawolff:, the survey results on naming have not been posted yet. The survey results (with anonymized data) will be published once they have been reviewed as part of the Board meeting. As I mentioned on the Wikimedia-l email (you linked it above), the survey results were not part of the agenda for the July 28 board meeting. The July 28 meeting agenda was to review the project history to provide new Board members context. Survey results, community concerns, and pathways forward + corrections to process are the agenda for the September Board meetings. The survey results will be linked on these project pages. Cheers - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)