Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming convention proposals/Option 1
The Foundation is a Foundation now. Will it stop being a Foundation after being called a Trust? What are the differences between Trust and Foundation? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ad Huikeshoven: A Trust generally has connotations of something being held on behalf of someone else. (I suspect that the name wouldn't have any legal implications, and would not require changing the structure of the organization.) Personally, I don't think I'd mind changing the name to "Wikimedia Trust". --Yair rand (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- If the Trust is going to hold something on behalf of the community legally, I wouldn't mind. If not, it sounds too much like codifying the authoritarian control model.
Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Negative connotation of trust[edit]
In Portuguese, Trust has a negative connotation, and is not usually associated with non-profits. GoEThe (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Same in French. A Trust is a family-controlled business with several company and assets. I feel "Trust" is a concept that come from the Common Law, so it will sound odd for the part of the world where it doesn't exist. Noé (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this insight, GoEThe and Noé. In the process of getting the proposals translated it became clear that “Trust” presented serious obstacles in certain languages. If you take a look at the Spanish and French translations here, you’ll see that the translators decided that the best possible translation to capture the meaning is the translation of Foundation. In the US context, Foundations are often private charitable organizations funded by a small group of wealthy individuals. Not exclusively, but mostly. This may not be the case in other contexts? So Trust was looked at as a possible alternative. Also pinging @Ad Huikeshoven: to build on the points discussed above: in English, Trust has the association with entrusting, and the same roots as the Board of TRUSTees. It also has the benefit of being shorter. I think these meanings are difficult to capture across languages. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- What makes virtually the three concepts the same in non-English languages. et voila, choose a random one, the three have the same translation! -Theklan (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this insight, GoEThe and Noé. In the process of getting the proposals translated it became clear that “Trust” presented serious obstacles in certain languages. If you take a look at the Spanish and French translations here, you’ll see that the translators decided that the best possible translation to capture the meaning is the translation of Foundation. In the US context, Foundations are often private charitable organizations funded by a small group of wealthy individuals. Not exclusively, but mostly. This may not be the case in other contexts? So Trust was looked at as a possible alternative. Also pinging @Ad Huikeshoven: to build on the points discussed above: in English, Trust has the association with entrusting, and the same roots as the Board of TRUSTees. It also has the benefit of being shorter. I think these meanings are difficult to capture across languages. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Opposition remains[edit]
I think I speak for the 90%+ who already opposed any use of the Wikipedia name by the WMF, when I say we still oppose co-opting the Wikipedia name by marketers for re-branding the Foundation. There are too many issues presented, and this idea should have died when it met such resounding disapproval. All 3 of the new options still present the idea that this Foundation speaks for the Wikipedia community, when it absolutely does not. And all 3 of these new options also make Wikipedia seem to be the only project among our sister projects, which is a slap in the face to anyone who volunteered their time outside the realm of just Wikipedia. The WMF has replaced the old idea of "if it's not broke, don't fix it" with "if most of the system is working, break all of the system and pay marketers to claim it is fixed". This remains a very bad idea, regardless of how much money you have wasted on it. — Coffee // have a cup // 23:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Never change a winning team[edit]
Oppose As a community we did very well for 19 years under the name Wikimedia. Just about everyone with enough understanding of English knows what media are. We have a kind of flagship called Wikipedia, but this is "just" a part of the entire organization and underestimates e.g. Commons, Data and last, but not least "good old" Meta, yes this project, dear coworkers.
Best regards, Klaas `Z4␟` V: 07:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose In the current system one of the tensions is between Wikipedia and the other projects. The smaller projects sometimes feel that Wikipedia has too much priority, especially in WMF resources and attention. I'm sure non Beetle parts of VW felt something similar in the 1950s and 60s. VW did not rebrand itself "Beetle", in hindsight this now looks like a wise move. Given that any rebranding involves costs and is a distraction from other things, Option 1 is a mistake, especially when one considers the non-Wikipedia parts of the movement. From the Wikipedia position, there is also the concern that this could lead to the Foundation taking more of a role in "speaking for Wikipedia" to the press etc. Given the low success rate of WMF initiatives over the years, I don't think it is in Wikipedia's interest to rebrand the WMF as Wikipedia. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I opposed this option because we need a name that reflects the human contribution (collaboration) from everywhere more than a (machine) network system. Alphama (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)