Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming convention proposals/Survey text

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Issues[edit]

@ELappen (WMF):

  • "How do you use the Wikimedia name?" is very ambiguous, and I'm not sure how to interpret it. I suspect those working with translations will have an even harder time.
  • Specifically asking people to justify their opinions only if they disagree with the Brands team is not something that should be done. (I think at least one project might have a term for this behaviour, but I can't remember what it's called.) It will bias the responses.
  • If you don't let people directly express that they don't think a proposal should be used, it's going to generate more conflict, and it's also probably going to mess up the responses to all the other fields. (Tbh, even if it's there but not on the same page (or earlier) as some of the early questions, it's probably going to mess up some of the responses.)
  • Please don't require that people reveal the country they live in. Anonymity is a key principle, we go through quite a lot to avoid requiring contributors to reveal that information. Make the field optional, or anyone who keeps that information private simply won't fill out the survey (biasing the responses even more), or will make something up. Please, talk to someone about this.
  • "In what language" should not be required if the user's project is a multilingual project like Commons or Wikidata.

--Yair rand (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yair rand:, Thanks for your attention to this. I've brought the points up for consideration with the survey experts at the Foundation (who have been guiding the Brand Project team).
  • Completely agree on the location field being optional. I've edited that question on the page to reflect its optionality, I believe that was an oversight in the copy.
  • The question "How do you use the Wikimedia name?" is contextualized with descriptive multiple choice options that should allow respondents to understand and select the options that apply to them. Originally the question was "How do you use the Wikimedia brand?" which felt less accessible to folks than "name". So, while I agree the question as a standalone is ambiguous, the question in context with all the answers should not be. To my knowledge, none of the translators into the 6 preselected languages flagged this as confusing or difficult to translate.
  • The question that appears if you select "disagree" or "strongly disagree" invites respondents to elaborate on what they feel should be improved. A big purpose of the survey is to remove and refine things that are not satisfactory, and the question focuses on getting that data. Note that the question is optional, so no one will be made to "justify" anything. With this in mind, I am double checking with the team whether there is a need for specific data on the things respondents really like as well.
  • "In what language?" was originally asked as "What language version?" and was set to be triggered only if the respondent selected a project that had language versions, as you've stated. However, in review, the point was raised that what we really care about is what language the volunteer operates in in our ecosystem, meaning that we should structure the question to also capture UI for the projects that are multilingual. For example: a Commons contributor may select Russian if they have their Commons UI in Russian. Hence the phrasing and configuration. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Is this the final text? –SJ talk 
Just closing the loop here that the team agrees there is a need for data around what people like as well, so the question referenced above is now asked more broadly and is not triggered by Disagree or Strongly disagree selections. @Sj: This is the text, yes! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty fair to say that given the number of objections below, this is not the text of a survey that can be presented to the community to gain consensus on anything. @ELappen (WMF): I'll also point out that you missed responding to Yair's third point, which needs to be addressed before this survey goes live, if it does. TomDotGov (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to contribute translations but I found very few strings which aren't heavily biased or otherwise problematic. A lot of work is needed on the text. To avoid wasting translator time it's advisable to delay the translations until the text is final. Nemo 16:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the concerns above about the text are pretty standard wiki wordsmithing, not a reflection of personal opinion about the poll. I think almost everyone commenting on this page would be ok with a cleanly worded survey whether or not the topic appealed to them. Likewise rebranding-enthusiasts would be dismayed by a survey whose setup called it's results into question. –SJ talk  20:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased survey introduction[edit]

This is remarkably biased language in the survey introduction: Since 2003, we have used the term "Wikimedia" to refer to this movement. However, after 15 years, the name "Wikimedia" remains unknown and confusing to the outside world. This makes it an ineffective tool for explaining who we are, demonstrating the impact of our work, and inviting new people in. By contrast, Wikipedia is globally-recognized, but it is not widely understood as part of a larger ecosystem of projects and communities. [emphasis added]--Pharos (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Branding Project, a small group within the WMF that heavily promotes rebranding, even against the communities wishes, is based on this apodictic assumption, that must not be questioned, at least in the POV of the heavily invested (WMF)ers. They fight tooth and nail any NPOV versions of the rebranding question. This is just the next step in this completely biased enterprise by this small group of MoaM. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pharos. The language used is biased and suggestive. We cannot run a survey where voters are being induced to vote for an option. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the actual discussion for the banner launchng the survey is at CentralNotice/Request/Movement Brand naming proposals.--Pharos (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased options[edit]

The options provided, on which to express opinions, are mostly irrelevant. For instance, there's no "The proposal will help advance our mission". In addition to the agree-disagree scale, there should be an option to disagree with the importance of the criterion. Nemo 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rep response, San Diego WikiMedians UG, Jun 14 2020[edit]

Background questions: affiliates:

  • Which affiliate are you representing? [open question] (required)
Answer: San Diego Wikimedians UG
  • How many people are sharing thoughts in this response? [provide a range] (required)
Answer: One (1) person, i.e. Myself only, for now. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 09:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vid2vid: No need to answer anything here. This ain't the survey, this is just some text proposal for the survey, and if it stays like it is, it will never be an official survey because of its extreme bias. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sänger:. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 10:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Draft of Survey response, continued[edit]

Test -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 10:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background questions: affiliates:
  • Which affiliate are you representing? [open question] (required)
San Diego Wikimedians UG
  • How many people are sharing thoughts in this response? [provide a range] (required)
Answer: One (1) person, i.e. Myself only, for now. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 09:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Here's what I'd drafted while you commented:
  • How many people are sharing thoughts in this response? [provide a range] (required)
Answer: One (1) person, i.e. myself only, for now.
Background questions: individual contributors:
  • What is your age? [select range] (optional)
Answer: 46 this past March 2020.
  • What is your current gender identity? Select all that apply. [select options] (optional)
Answer: Human male. =}
  • What is your most active Wikimedia Project? [drop down] (required)
Answer: The UG itself I suppose.
  • In what language (by language code)? [drop down] (required)
Answer: English, goes for other members, including one Gentleman who is sight-impaired.
  • Where do you currently live? [drop down] (optional)
Answer: Our UG members all live here: San Diego County, California, Earth. =} Oop. One temporarily living near Seattle to care for family member.
  • How do you use the Wikimedia [checkbox, all that apply] (required)
Answer below:
Yes: Internally, within the movement (community policy writing, community governance, community communications, casually in community conversations, etc.)
Yes: Externally (outreach, events, representing the movement to external parties,
N/A answer = I do not use the Wikimedia name

Responses (rough draft) by: -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 10:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC). Updated: -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 01:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hey there @Vid2vid: Just letting you know the individual contributor survey is now live on Qualtrics if you want to fill it out. (Here's a link to the survey privacy statement if you want to review that). This is just the page for people to review the text :) If you also want to fill out the affiliate version together with the San Diego Wikimedians User Group, you should have received that link to your affiliate's registered email address. If not, just let me know. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing concerns about the Naming survey[edit]

Moved to Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Addressing_concerns_about_the_Naming_survey. Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sister projects?[edit]

"This proposal will help support and bring awareness to the sister projects" The sister projects of what? My home wiki? Or is this to be understood as all projects? Ainali (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it means all projects minus Wikipedia, see Glossary#S (so Wikidata, Commons, Wikisource in all languages etc.). I don't know in Swedish. Nemo 07:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
its still pretty concerning that the survey is using such terms without defining them. I suppose though its one of the least concerning things about it though. Bawolff (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's clear that the survey was way too rushed. On this specific term, https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=%22sister+projects%22&ia=web has w:en:Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects as second result, so hopefully it's relatively easy to find the correct meaning. Nemo 07:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From your last link "Wikimedia sister projects are all the publicly available wikis operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, including Wikipedia." So not "minus Wikipedia" then. Not easy at all I would say.. Ainali (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In practice I've never heard anyone refer to Wikipedia as a sister project, when people mean all of them, they just say Wikimedia. Bawolff (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very unclear and ambigous term. It means different things in different contexts, so it has to be defined, what's meant here. All language versions of all different thematic venues are projects, deWP is a distinct project from cebWP and ruWP, deWP is a distinkt project from deWN and deWS. You could as well in some contextes put all Wikipedias in one project, and all Wikisources in another, and thus bundle along the thematic lines. So the sister projects of deWP could be in one context all other language versions of WP, or all other german language versions of the different thematic entities. It's unclear, and so mit should either not be used at all, or be clearly and unambigous defined. As a small remark: How could the accentuation of one project bring awareness to the other projects, that just got diminished by this accentuation? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other names[edit]

I do not agree with all of the new names which were proposed. Why the Board don't ask the community to propose the names instead of doing by yourself? It is better and we have more options and considerations to decide a more proper name. Alphama (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Survey_text&oldid=26494883"