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 00:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Open letter (more stats) Affiliates Non-Affiliates Community members Total entities
Pause or stop renaming 72 5 977 1054

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)

Moving Forwards[edit]

The current Board of Directors has issued an update, and a resolution changing the nature of the work on branding until March 1, 2021. While it suspends discussion of the branding proper until March 1, for now it tasks community members, affiliate leaders, staff, and trustees with developing a new process for how brand discussions should occur when they resume.

I think the most important change that can be made to this project will be to develop the brand in collaboration with the community. The main problem with branding so far has been the way that it has taken place in a series of discrete steps, each months apart, and with the sense that prior feedback has not fed into the branding process. The community has been pretty consistent in telling the Foundation that usurping the Wikipedia name was a non-starter, and rather than accept that feedback early and spend our time researching names that complied with the Movement Branding Guidelines, a lot of effort was spent trying to deny an outcome that was clear before the project began. Let's not do that again, and instead get suggestions for branding from the community, and iterate rapidly on those suggestions.

Specifically, this should mean an end to things like branding events, hour long youtube streams, and so on. I sort of think that the Board's suggestion that this take place at in-person events is a recipe for continued failure, and one of the causes of the current problems - in-person events like that tend to limit the audience to those that can attend, people who might have a very different perspective than the community as a whole. What's more, events increase the time it takes for feedback to be delivered and addressed from hours to months, meaning the project had time to waste effort on unproductive directions, effort that human nature makes it hard to discard.

One of the most interesting things in the process is that our traditional methods of gaining and determining consensus - informal on-wiki discussion, followed by formal discussions like RfCs if necessary, have proven very successful. The problems with the current process were made apparent through these processes, and the warnings that were given that this project was moving in a direction unsupported by community consensus proved accurate. My hope is that we can reverse this mistake in the next iteration of branding - engage the community early and often, and be responsive to concerns. It might seem less efficient, but without community buy-in, we'll have spent a year on branding without results. I'd caution strongly against trying to come up with another bespoke consensus process for branding, as, in the words of the Brand Project Team:

Our “non typical” process was seen as less legitimate. Moving away from RfCs and contests has been viewed unfavorably. We did not properly explain the reasoning behind some of our choices, so by the time we did, they were perceived as against the values of the Wikimedia and wiki way.

I don't think it's a simply a matter of how the process is perceived - it was less legitimate, as it involved denying community consensus rather than working to establish community consensus. I think it's quite possible that the Wikimedia branding should be improved - I don't think the current branding makes sense for anything but commons. At the same time, trying to reuse Wikipedia is a non-starter, as it is the one name that can be confused with 'Wikipedia' more easily than 'Wikimedia' can be. We've had suggestions for brand changes that weren't addressed. A community contest suggested the Wikipedia puzzle globe logo - which evolved into the world class logo we have today. Why not spend the time to find another one? TomDotGov (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it quite telling, how active the main drivers of this small group of renamers were in the last time in regard of interaction with the community (and no, Facebook is by no means any valid venue for community interaction):

  • ZMcCune (WMF): last interaction with community here on 24. August
  • ELappen (WMF): last interaction with community here on 11. August
  • Selsharbaty (WMF): last interaction with the community about the branding project 11. August

Even the Board took a week to make this resolution public, and it's mainly a resolution, that tries to circumvent the elephant in the room, that the renaming to Wikipedia will never happen, that it was a complete err9or to invest anything ion this without proper community participation, the mentioning of Covid-19 is just a distraction from the real issues here. The community solidly and completely rejected the brainchild of this small group, and they still don't want to admit it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

TomDotGov: 100% my thoughts, couldn't put it together better. This entire project was started with a premise that the entire rebranding project belongs to the WMF's Branding Team/Communications Team only. I felt it was like: it's our job to progress this project so leave it all to us. However our boss told us to have some input from you, so please talk to us but only when we ask you. We may not listen to you though since it's our project and we are the ones who are responsible for it. It was like that all the time. I got to know about rebranding plans only in January, after I saw a information about RfC on metawiki's main page, so let me tell you how it looked like for me. January: why starting the RfC? It's too early, there are going to be workshops soon. February: We conducted workshops, so there's no need for your input at this point. March: We still don't need to hear from you about possible names, but you can participate in the Snohetta exercises instead. Let's just wait until we reveal the unified brand concept. April: So here's our unified brand concept. So cool, isn't it?. May: Just wait for it ;^). June: Okay, here are our proposa-... what??? you don't like that? But we asked for your input though. No, there was never a chance to propose anything. This process was the farthest it could be from the „wiki way”. The „wiki way” is: look, here's a problem, let's think of a solution together. No need for workshops, no need for any in-person meetings, no need for virtual meetings, no need for presentations, no need for IRC hours. You just had to create Communications/Wikimedia_brands/brainstorming, tell that you need to change a name, clearly explain why and ask the community to provide feedback to our proposals and, if they don't like them, to come up with proposals themselves. That's all. That's why I absolutely LOVE how currently the MediaWiki logo change proposal is being conducted. That's why I liked this little discussion: that's how it's supposed to be! We come up with ideas, we comment on ideas, we polish the ideas and we got the best result. There's still a chance to do this, but to be honest, at this point the community is really really tired by this rebranding process. After wasting so much of our precious time on this, the spirit is really down and only a handful of people would like this process to even continue. Sorry for my bad English. tufor (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Tufor, thank you for the kind words. I'll also drop a link to mw:Project:Proposal_for_changing_logo_of_MediaWiki,_2020, since I hadn't seen it before today, and because it looks like it's going to be an example of a successful branding project. It would be interesting when designing a new procedure to compare the time this project took (it looks like it'll take about 4-5 months from start to finish), and the amount of resources the Foundation had to commit to these two projects. TomDotGov (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the community clearly broadly agrees, but the Foundation isn't hearing anything it doesn't want to hear. I think we need concrete action from the community. I'm contemplating some RFC ideas. Alsee (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia 46 for, 540 against[edit]

There was an RFC that resulted from some of the methodology and perceived confusing approach being undertaken in this discussion and process about brand, particularly that the brand of the Foundation would be WIKIPEDIA. There was what could possibly be observed as a straw poll of participants in the discussion that had 46 people support that sort of renaming, with 540 not in favour. There was much discussion, and many impassioned points of view about the proposals and the process. The deferral of the decision-making process was noted, though the level of dissatisfaction about the process continues to exist. It would be fair to conclude that the opinion resonating from the conversation is that there is a level of foregone conclusion in what is proposed and that those running or formulating the process are not truly hearing the negative commentary nor suitably responding to questions being asked. There is a trust deficit in the existing process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the use of Wikipedia for anything but the Wikipedia was thoroughly rejected by the community. Any recommendation with Wikipedia in it is thus completely off the table, if anyone still tries to keep it there, it's clear they are acting explicitly against the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for community advisors to Board committee on Brand[edit]

Dear all, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has convened an ad hoc committee on the Movement Brand Project. Three trustees were selected to head its work, in close collaboration with the Brand team - Raju Narisetti, James Heilman and myself. Seeking to improve the Brand Project process, we are looking for community advisors to give input from various Wikimedia movement perspectives. The goal is to re-launch the brand discussions with a clear and transparent process in March 2021, and to conclude the conversations with a decision by the end of the fiscal year (July 2021). Though we will be approaching specific groups directly asking for advisors, I am updating the general Brand page with details, so there is clarity & transparency regarding the process.

What will advisors do?[edit]

The Brand Committee is charged with developing and proposing changes to the Movement Brand Project process. The committee will produce a proposal that the full Board of Trustees will review and hopefully agree to adopt, if aligned. Advisors will support us in recognizing key stakeholder community perspectives on branding needs, processes and decision-making. They will provide input and comments on proposed changes to process and offer working solutions to challenges the committee encounters. Advisors will be able to share ideas and ask questions to their communities, as needed. The full process will be vetted and endorsed by advisors before the Board of Trustees makes its final decision on adopting these proposed changes to process and decision-making. After the proposed changes to process and decision-making are adopted, the new process will be launched in March.

What kind of commitment is needed?[edit]

Advisors can expect 6-9 hours of activity a month, in January and February 2021, though we will be aiming to launch the joint process with a first meeting during the second half of December. There will be opportunities to join committee meetings with Board members & staff, or to watch recordings of the meetings and provide feedback asynchronously. Documents and proposals will be shared among advisors for comment, review and suggestions.

What kind of advisor is the committee seeking?[edit]

The Brand Committee is looking for a small set of advisors who are able to engage thoughtfully on the importance of branding to the Wikimedia Movement’s 2030 goals. Advisors will be asked to reflect on more than processes: they will be asked to think about the strategic goals of the brand names and logos within the movement, and how to equitably structure decisions around them. Ideal advisors therefore have experience representing the movement to the public, as well as understand the internal needs of the movement’s work as something multidimensional and open. The number of advisors will be between 7 - 9 people, in an effort to support active participation within the committee, and to keep the process on track, to “un-pause” in March. By then we strive for a clear sense of a process with which the broader community will be able to engage. We have identified 3 main groups we would like advisors from:

  • 2 advisors from affiliate leadership (Chairpersons or EDs)
  • 2 advisors from the community, specifically, people who participated in authoring the Community Open Letter on Renaming (COLOR)
  • 2 additional advisors from the global south / emerging and underrepresented communities*
  • 1 advisor from AffCom

Please note:[edit]

  • As the global south / emerging and underrepresented communities include a variety of different groups, we will be actively approaching Wiki Indaba, ESEAP, IberoCoop, the India lists and the Brazilian community, asking each to nominate one advisor (if I have missed a group you believe to qualify, please let me know privately and I’ll be sure to approach them as well). Out of all applications from these groups, 2 will be chosen to complement the other 5 representatives (2 from affiliates, 2 from COLOR, 1 from AffCom). Our goal would be to choose from groups that are not already represented by other chosen advisors, with a special effort to be as diverse and inclusive as possible.
  • The committee might also directly invite up to 2 additional advisors, as it sees fit.

How should advisors be nominated and added to the committee?[edit]

The committee is requesting all advisor nominations to be sent no later than January 31st, 2021. The committee will review applications and make its final decision on advisors during February.
Those interested are requested to contact their relevant groups (Affiliates, COLOR, AffCom, emerging communities) and reach a consensus with the group on who the representatives should be before sending their nominations. Nominees are requested to send an email shani(_AT_) with your nominations and include the following details: Subject line: Nomination for the Brand Committee Advisors Task Force; Full name; Wiki Username; Affiliation; A short (!) paragraph on why you would like to be part of the process and how you believe you can contribute.

Thank you all for your participation and contribution to this process! Shani Evenstein Sigalov, On Behalf of the Brand Committee, Board of Trustees, Wikimedia Foundation. Shani (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

!! Important update -- We have received feedback from different communities and individuals asking us for more time to nominate advisors. The Brand Committee has just met has unanimously agreed to push the nomination deadline to January 31st. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments & Questions[edit]

Why start anything with this rather very low priority project until the high priority projects like elections, bylaws, UCoC, Global Council, Movement strategy etc. are done and over. And please state clear and unambiguously that the name Wikipedia for anything but Wikipedia is completely off the agenda. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sänger ♫. Thank you for your comments, which I personally found to be on point. As of now, we have a Board resolution to "un-pause" brand on March and finalize the work by the end of this fiscal year. However, hearing requests from community for more time, the Committee resolved today to extend the advisors nomination deadline. Note that advisors are meant to help us design a better process and decide on a suitable timeline. I also hear you about priorities (which was also raised by others). The Committee will also be recommending a revised timeline for the Brand project to the full Board in the coming December Board meeting. Additionally, I can share that the Board is working on changes to its Committees work and (among other things) is looking to create new structures that will support a more systematic way of working with the community and prioritizing different needs (both from WMF & community). Finally, a gentle remind that we are all on the same side. This Committee is listening carefully to both the Board, WMF staff and the community, and is doing its best to find solutions that align all needs and best serve our mission and vision. So even if it's challenging at this point, please keep in mind that this Committee has just started its work. Assume good faith and give us a chance. We are hear to listen and serve. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding my second statement, in connection to your "this committee is listening carefully", what about the rejected renaming towards Wikipedia? Is it still an option, or do you really listen to the community? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Sänger, I did not answer that because I do not hold the answer to that question. That will be determined only after a community-wide consultation, which has not happened yet. The advisors we are looking for now are not meant to help make the decisions about Branding, but rather to design an inclusive and equitable process for the community to participate in. In other words, in the process, which the community will help design and stand behind, we will be consulting the wider community, and the results of that consultation(s) will inform the Board in its final decision. Per your specific question about the Wikipedia name -- so far, we've been hearing different things from different parts of the movement. There seems to be a scale of answers ranging from "This is the worst idea and should be taken off the table right now", to "This is what we've been waiting for, for a long time, so bring it on already". So far, we did not have a truly global & inclusive process. We had an attempted of a process that was criticized for being flawed by the community, and which resulted in people asking for the process to pause / stop. The Board listened and paused. The board, however, is still convinced that this is an important topic to explore, especially considering our 2030 strategic goals, and that the request to explore Branding came from the community in the early stages of the strategic process. So this Ad Hoc Committee was formed to make sure that we create a good process and have a proper consultation with the community, one that is not flawed nor questioned later, and one that is designed with the community, considering different stakeholders' perspectives. This is where we are now. So your question, while interesting and important, is jumping way ahead of where we are in the process right now. All I can say is that all options are on the table for discussion, but what we are concerned with, at this point in time, is making sure that moving forward, we do that with a fair and inclusive process that the community feels good about and wants to engage in. After that consultation, the Board will be in a better position to make informed decisions. I wholeheartedly believe we are just not there yet. I encourage you (and others) to stay engaged. As I promised, I'll keep updating this page about where we are in the process, as we advance, step by step. Shani (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shani (WMF): The community already conducted this consultation, at Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia. The Foundation's Brand Project Team produced a summary back in April, which you can read here. The results matched the other times the community had this conversation, such as at the initial review. It's inappropriate for the Board to act like the community's opinions is not known, after it's been clearly reported for more than half a year. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 01:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
TomDotGov, thanks for that. I am aware of this RfC and of the report. From what I understand, there has been criticism of this process claiming that it is not inclusive enough, and represents only parts of our movements. I can promise 2 things in this respect -- 1) I will take it back to the next Committee meeting, which is Jan 20th, and all the evidence of previous engagements around branding will be re-examined and addressed by the Committee, before we engage with community advisors. 2) I will make sure that all past engagements will inform the new design process, which is about more than just the WMF name change. Shani (WMF) (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shani (WMF): Those people are simply wrong.
The Requests for Comments process is the process we use for settling content and most other disputes (behavioral disputes being the main exception), because it's a process that's self-evidently fair. Everyone who wants to can participate, make their best case. It's the same sort of credibility that comes with elections - when everyone who wants to participate can, there comes a natural legitimacy. People might debate if the election was conducted fairly, but they don't debate that fairly conducted elections are legitimate. In an RfC, people are allowed to argue for their points, provided they remain civil. And then we come to a decision as a community. That's the process the community followed to make this decision, and I think it was a good and correct one. I don't think it's reasonable to say that large portions of the community were unrepresented in the RfC process when it ran for most of a year, and had participants from 49 (or more) home Wikis. So I'd say that such criticisms of the RfC process need to be supported, rather than just asserted.
If there is a better way to make contentious decisions, then it's not clear why we're exploring it here, rather than seeing how we could use that superior process to make decisions about the creation of the content that is our actual mission. I don't think such a process exists, and if one did exist I'd suggest it would be better to explore that in some other context, not in the context of a process that has already concluded. I will say that below, you describe a process that takes place off-wiki as "the Wiki way", and I don't believe that is correct. I think there is a Wiki way, and it involves discussing things on-wiki. While achieving consensus directly is better, RfCs are currently the legitimate and Wiki way to resolve a contentious issue.
I do think that on-wiki discussions like the ones we're having now are valuable, and need to continue, ideally with the rest of the Committee present, so we don't wind up returning to this place at the end of January or March. I don't really believe that this is anything you don't know already, but I think it's still important that this be presented to the Committee and Board. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 04:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You're right on two things -- 1) it's not new to me. 2) It's important that this perspective is presented to the Committee & Board, which is exactly why I appreciate you taking the time to put it on wiki. But you're wrong in one assumption -- to me, the Wiki way is on-Wiki. I do support using external social media platforms to connect better with people from the community, as I think that the Wiki is lacking in that sense; but it will usually be in order to bring them back to participate on Wiki. So, not sure why you concluded that I "describe a process that takes place off-wiki as "the Wiki way"". But. Even if I lemment you reaching that conclusion (especially after reading me putting so much emphasis on working closely with the community and protecting its interests and values), you're entitled to your opinion. In any case, as promised before, I will take it back to the Committee. I'll update when I have something new to share. Shani Evenstein. 05:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
More succinctly - the RfC that we finished during the pause is the conclusion of a legitimate process that was conducted in the longstanding Wiki way. If the Foundation thought there were important perspectives that were missing, the time to have presented them was while the RfC was running. The current plan is for some process to occur off-wiki in February and March. If that process contradicts the on-wiki RfC's conclusion, it's illegitimate. If it's the same, it's unnecessary. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 06:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
TomDotGov, I was not referring to that RfC, which was inclusive and valid, but to things which happened later that year (like the survey), which were considered by community not-valid and resulted in the COLOR letter. As I wrote before, the Committee will include all of the different steps that were already taken around Branding into consideration in its design process. Also noting again that the Brand process is about more than the WMF name change. I will share more after our Jan meeting. Shani (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shani (WMF): I'll refer you to the Board Update on Branding: next steps: "Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on whether to adopt them." That's because the survey had major methodological problems in its design, leading to a biased outcome. If you take a look at the CentralNotice request, there is a reasonable discussion of the problems of the survey. This is why discussing things in public is important. Mentioning this makes it clear you're looking at a survey the community, staff, and board have all indicated is unsuitable for this purpose, which shows the advantage of the wiki way. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 21:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Tom, seems like we are on the same page on that. Whatever happens when we "unpause" the Brand process will be on Wiki. Till we get to that point, the Committee, with its advisors, will work on a process, and when we unpause, will present it to the community. That is the mechanism the board has right now to operate, in collaboration with Staff & community, and it's not a new mechanism in the movement. Shani (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Shani, the problem is that that the problems that the Movement Brand Project had were with process design. You had processes that were designed on-wiki, like the RFC, that yielded legitimate results. And then you had processes designed off-wiki, like the Snohetta junkets, the Facebook group, and the second Survey, all of which were designed off-wiki and yielded results that were illegitimate and incorrect. It's a bit depressing when the Foundation comes back and proposes to make the same mistake it's been making for the last year - non-public process design - and it's impossible to stop the inevitable and expensive failure that will result. The board needs a better mechanism, and fast. And if this board can't find that mechanism, it needs to be replaced with a new board, ASAP - ideally, two months ago.
Speed matters. If we talk on Wiki every few days, then I can assume good faith if you forgot that the Survey was deemed invalid. But if you come back after too months, and tell me that "oh, we based all this work on this survey", it's much harder. I never asked for a pause, didn't sign COLOR. Right now, I wrote three of the seven guidelines for good movement branding, and I think a new logo and a better way of tying Wikipedia to the other projects - without usurping Wikipedia's identity - would be great. I proposed a way to move forward above, which turned out to mirror the successful branding initiatives. I want us to talk more, not less, and either accept the completed process as definitive, or find one acceptable to everyone. But I don't want to go off-wiki and become part of the problem. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi TomDotGov and Shani. As I really appreciate this conversation and the one just below, I want to stand for Shani this time. I am quite convince the board members are not gods. They have a limited time to dedicate to the board, as they are not paid for that, and plenty topics to discuss. I think all of those persons are of good will and full of skills. However, it is not their responsibility to make themselves the process. They offer here an open room to gather people with time and competences to do so. This comité will not take any decision but design a new process to be approve by the board - and I hope also by the community - before it starts. Gathering view from the community and add more views through an outwiki expertise doesn't seem odd to me. This brand is as much for the editors than for the readers, now and in the future. The RfC was in Meta and in English, that's a bias also. I am convinced no one have the perfect idea for the process or for the result. Better keep talking and building methods to expend our views about this subject. Face-smile.svg Noé (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Affiliate signers of m:COLOR
@Noé: If the board members aren't able to conduct the process in a legitimate manner, it's better to keep it paused until a new board can. As-is, the board is choosing to change the status-quo by unpausing early, and designing a process off-wiki. That is likely to cause a repeat of the mistakes that the Foundation's Brand Project team made in the past. There isn't any commitment from the board that the process designed off-wiki will be approved by the community before it is starts, and experience with the Brand Project shows that it won't be. The flaws in things like the second survey were clear before it was run, and those flaws were ignored by the Foundation.
The gold standard for large community conversations is the talk pages consulation. It was designed on-wiki by the interaction of a Foundation staff member with the community. Once a fair process was established, more consultations took place on various wikis, in many languages. A good solution was discovered on a, IIRC, Russian wiki, etc. So I think it's possible to have on-wiki processes that work well in multiple languages, provided the process starts with on-wiki discussion. What worries me a lot is that the Foundation and Board are creating bespoke processes off-wiki that claim to increase representation, but instead are engineered to produce a predetermined result. At COLOR, a diverse group of affiliates and community members pointed this out, but now the Foundation seems poised to repeat their mistakes.
There isn't a big cultural divide as to if sentences like "The Wikipedia Network Foundation does not control the content of Wikipedia." are confusing, and hence against the first rule of good movement branding. So acting like we have to create a special procedure to determine this to make sure everyone is represented feels more like a way of inviting bias, rather than reducing it. It's especially bad because these procedures seems to over-represent privileged people, those who can fly out to in-person meetings, in a way that on-wiki discussions do not. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 13:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I if get it right (as it was only in English, I am not sure), you wrote that the advisors should be aligned with Wikimedia Movement’s 2030 goals. I am not, and I consider there are Wikimedia Foundation 2030 goals, not Wikimedia Movement's 2030 goals. I am quite worry about this statement. I think picking only people with one selected vision may conduce to a biased result, made by a small homogeneous group and not supported by the whole community. How do you plan to include people with other visions of the future of the Wikimedia Movement in this discussion? Noé (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Noé. First, thank you for this question. I am also not an English native speaker, so I appreciate where you're coming from and believe your question is an important one to clarify. The short answer to your question is that I am not as worried as you, because I believe we are taking necessary steps to make sure we are not biased and actually as inclusive and diverse as possible. First, if you look at the language we used, we wrote that we are looking for people who can "engage thoughtfully on the importance of branding to the Wikimedia Movement’s 2030 goals" (if I'm getting to the sentence you are referring to). That does not mean that we are looking for any specific point of view. Yes, we are in an unprecedented moment in our movement, in which after a very long, and as inclusive as possible process, we have decided on our goals for 2030 as a movement (I'm referring to the Strategy Recommendations document, with 10 main goals). The fact that we were able to produce something that so many people participated in creating and that was endorsed by so many people in the movement, is an achievement in itself. But, it certainly does not mean that every single Wikimedian, from any single Wiki project, personally endorses every single one of the recommendations. It would be impossible to please everyone. But the recommendations are just that -- recommendations. They do not include details on the how and when and they could be interpreted differently by different individuals, which is why we will need to discuss every single one of them, as a movement. Second, different points of views and inclusions have been core values to our movement for along time. In that spirit, the Committee has made an effort to identify different groups of "stakeholders" -- the larger community, affiliates, and emerging / less represented communities. In the first category, we actually approached community members who have been involved in asking for this project to pause, so are natural criticizers of it. We have then asked each group to send us their chosen candidates. Meaning, we are not choosing candidates. Each group will be sending its candidates to us, in order to specifically avoid even an appearance that we might be working only with people we chose, or that have the same perspective as us (there is no one perspective, BTW). This Committee values the different approaches to Branding and believes it is important to include all of them in the conversation that we will have about how the process should look like. Then, there will be a community consultation, which will be designed to be as inclusive as possible. In other words, we are making an effort to avoid bias and include as many voices as possible, including opposing ones, every single step of the way in this process. It is the Wiki way. And the only way to go, as far as this Committee is concerned. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice answer. I understand that you are challenging important bias to be as inclusive as possible, and I think it is made quite well. Good. It is still difficult to integrate minorities you never heard about. Gender issues are well known (despite being often loosely challenged), North/South also, but there is other discriminations or difficulties than you can't consider if you don't gather enough people. I am thinking of three examples: there is editors who are not adult, aged under 18 (or another age, depending of the country they are in) with specific needs and forces ; there is still people speaking of sister projects, blind to consider that a lot of people arrived in the wiki projects through another project than Wikipedia and some people may never edit Wikipedia, but are still part of the community (I am thinking of speakers of endangered languages more interested by audio recording, pedagogical material and dictionary-style documentation rather than encyclopedic writing or data collection); there is a lot of people that can't understand English and never heard of Meta or any surveys but happy to edit, they will not be more implicate with a different branding, it is just how non-profit activities works. I am not asking for specific answers for those three, it is just a set of possible "minorities" that could be missed during this process. -- Noé (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments about inclusion, Noé, which are completely on point from my perspective. I cannot answer to all of it, but I can share a few things that you might find interesting in that respect -- 1) You might have noticed that the Committee has reserved the option of inviting 2 additional advisors. Those seats will be reserved to include communities / groups in our movement that we feel are not represented by the 7 that will be coming from the community at large; or for external experts that might assist its work (to be determined with the 7 . 2) The Committee members are actually well aware of language barriers, so we represent that point of view in that sense, as well as the point you made on other Sister Projects. We may speak of Wikipedia because that is the most well known project, but are looking at all projects and volunteers. 3) To your point on children under 18, not really related to Brand, but a general note -- this point was raised by me during the Board's discussions on the Universal Code of Conduct and the Board resolution on making our movement more safe and inclusive. Our resolution actually included a request to consult external experts on Designing for Childrens' Rights (as a different things from Human Rights), as part of starting to think more strategically about this group of volunteers. So, again, I'm thinking about these things and at least in that capacity, it will be included in the Committee's work. Finally, it's a good place to remind people that if there are other groups that you feel are not represented, please send me an email (shani(_AT_) and I'll take that into consideration. Shani (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both, I agree it is of value to use the 2030 strategy as a framework for ideas that can be developed further, and hopefully building off of it even broader consultations. I believe it is especially valuable and serves the community especially well when issues that have been treated separately are integrated into the 2030 strategy process in a transparent way, and appreciate this as a positive step in that direction for the branding issue.--Pharos (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on your success[edit]


In the German language edition of the encyclopedia traditionally known as Wikipedia there is an annual competition for the un-word of the year. I have the honour of announcing that "Wikipedia Foundation" was victorious this time. Cheers, enjoy your champagne. → «« Man77 »» [de] 15:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, just to explain (not to follow the sarcasm): In Germany, a jury annually announces a "word of the year" that was most typical for the public discourses in that year. Another yury announces an "unword of the year", often an euphemism or a word denoting something negative. German Wikipedia imitates this tradition and elects annually a Wikipedia "unword". Ziko (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)