Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review/results

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Affiliate comments[edit]

Several of the quotes that are here ascribed to an entire chapter or user group (Wikimedia South Africa, Wikimedia Indonesia, Wikimedia User Group Nigeria, …) seem to have been written by a single person (“I think”, “When I apply”, “I believe”, …). Do these people speak for their entire affiliate? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, @Lucas Werkmeister! We have spoken to the affiliate leaders and they were asked to comment as representatives. Many shared the proposal with their communities and summarized their feedback for us. In all, the affiliate responses reflect the overall perspectives of those groups but not all individual opinions of course. On the contrary, many times there were mixed views coming from the same affiliate. --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for clarifying. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The metrics used here are troubling[edit]

Two KPIs in particular were referred to here: "20% of affiliates support" and "Less than 20% of informed community oppose".

The page reports that 122 affiliates were "reached", 63 responded, and of these 24 supported. It therefore claims 24 / 63 = 38.1% support. If we apply the same calculation to the mailing list and on-wiki responses, we find 12 / 38 = 31.6% opposed on the mailing list and 45 / 106 = 42.5% opposed on-wiki, both significantly failing the threshold for community opposition.

But that's not the measure used for community opposition. Instead the opposition is calculated as 57 oppositions (combined mailing list and wiki) divided by 9000 "reached", claiming only 0.6% opposed. If we apply that same measurement to the affiliates, that's only 24 / 122 = 19.7% in support, just barely failing the low threshold for affiliate support.

The measure of community "reached", for that matter, is in itself troubling as it seems akin to haranguing people on a street corner and counting everyone who passes by. Including those who pay no attention, those who sleep through the whole thing, and those who see others already arguing back and decide they have nothing to add. Anomie (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZMcCune (WMF): - I share this concern that the denominator for each of these metrics is different in scope and scale, producing inconsistent results. Can you help explain more about why this method was used? -- Fuzheado (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: @Fuzheado: Hi all! The metrics used in this consultation were meant to gauge response not to offer a score for the proposal or stand in for a vote of any kind. This was because the proposal was conceptual not explicit: we were assessing how community felt about re-organizing around Wikipedia as center point in place of Wikimedia. It is now, given the largely neutral response to this conceptual proposal, that we begin co-developing an actual system to use/extend/define how a Wikipedia-led brand system would work and with that, assessing response from across the movement more directly. Again, this process is community-guided and the results will be opt-in. Hope to have you involved! ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "largely neutral" is accurate. What does "opt-in" mean in this context? That if Wikipedia doesn't approve, the WMF won't permit its name to be misused? --Yair rand (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth, is the received feedback largely neutral? There is absolutely no need to abuse data for the sake of moving on with the proposal. Just issue a proclamation that you (WMF) know best (as always) and get over with it. Winged Blades of Godric (talk)
The silent majority clearly took sides! Nemo 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZMcCune (WMF): and @Whatamidoing (WMF): the Foundation has a rather poor reputation among the community, and this is one of the reasons why. ZMcCune you say there were "largely neutral" responses, but the responses were actually overwhelmingly negative at Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review. The worst part is were the report claims a figure of 0.6% oppose. Several editors, including myself, explicitly told you this methodology was a problem. The current RFC is running 90% 91% 93% opposed (79 114 250 oppose vs 8 11 20 support the plan). But let's shift the focus forward:
  • Can we agree that the methodology behind "0.6% of informed oppose" should not be used in the future?
  • Assuming the RFC remains overwhelmingly negative when it ends, can we agree that the Foundation must change course on the rebranding strategy?
When the Foundation needs to evaluate community feedback, I suggest the Foundation can tap a valuable resource. The community has people with specific experience and expertise in evaluating consensus. You can likely find someone willing to help convert chaotic-bulk-feedback into a useful result if you post at EN:WP:AN/RFC, and I'm personally happy to help with that sort of thing. Alsee (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


On the Mailing List some people are noting that doing a clear, open and wide Request for comments, with a central notice message, would be a better idea, because the consensus you collected seems unclear and many people doubt. @MZMcBride and Pine:--Ferdi2005[Mail] 17:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that previously, there was a voicing of opinions that resembled a mini RfC, which can be found here: Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Proposal_to_move_the_voting_to_a_subpage. In that tally, it started out as 2 support/1 neutral/13 oppose. A final count shows 2 support/1 neutral/25 oppose, with 9 of those opposes as strong oppose. That amounts to 89% opposing. Now, this should not be taken as comprehensive, but this is in stark contrast to the above number being put forth that claims only 0.6% opposed. These numbers are very much at odds, and it's hard to imagine a good faith effort moving forward until we reconcile how we are measuring the sentiment of the community. Notifying participants in the previous brainstorm discussion: @AGK, Abzeronow, Ain92, AndreCarrotflower, Atropine, Beleg Tâl, Chaddy, Cimbail, Cinemantique, Criscod, Digr, Fay Freak, Ferdi2005, Gryllida, Ikan Kekek, Jaluj, Lambiam, Leaderboard, MER-C, MarcoAurelio, Marcus Cyron, Mbrickn, OhanaUnited, PiRSquared17, Psychoslave, SelfieCity, and Wellparp: and courtesy ping for @ELappen (WMF), ZMcCune (WMF), and Selsharbaty (WMF):-- Fuzheado (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. These numbers are very strange. I would start a wider votation and discover which is the real opinion of the community!--Ferdi2005[Mail] 17:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"0.6% of informed oppose (57 users oppose of ~9,000 reached) " - is that some kind of late april fool? Chaddy (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever did this nonsense here: I would be interested in how you would evaluate election results. I. e., 10 out of 100 people participated in an election, 1 of them supported the candiate, 9 voted against him. In your world the candidate would now have only 9 percent oppose, would he? Chaddy (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZMcCune (WMF): Please stop the process until a proper RfC is done and completed. The way it is now, all of this seems to be very much out of process.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia going to be forced on us smaller wikis (like Wikivoyage, my own). Please, can we smaller sites just maintain our independence from Wikipedia? I edit on WP if I want to edit Wikipedia, and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to edit Wikivoyage, a sister but not a part of Wikipedia, if I want to do so. SelfieCity (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SelfieCity, the proposal is for a "voluntary, OPT-IN" system (all caps in the original). If you're interested in talking about the options that should be available to various communities and affiliates (such as the ideas in some of your past comments), then please feel free to join the discussion at Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That link goes to an off-wiki site which is not under the auspices of the Wikimedia community. It is not a valid place for decision-making. Please don't encourage such violations. --Yair rand (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to imagine WMF really engaging on this here. It seems like they have accepted that community opposition is a foregone conclusion for anything they do, and consequently can be ignored as "expected and irrelevant" under the rationale that the participating community is insignificant next to the silent reader audience. In this case I think the WMF is headed for more confusion and not less, and more conflict with the community and not less. Rebranding projects that aren't encyclopedia's as projects of "Wikipedia Foundation" just doesn't make sense.

And I can't think how even the stated goal is particularly important. Wikimedia's fundraising is already centered on it's strongest brand; audiences already identify it with the Wikipedia project. What goals are advanced by removing the Wikimedia brand and focusing on Wikipedia? Will it bring less confusion over whether the "Wikipedia Foundation" can influence content on Wikipedia? Will it help in lawsuits, or in participation in advocacy events? Will people on Capitol Hill or Elysee Palace or Red Square or the Hague be more easily persuaded? Just doesn't make sense! Nathan T 21:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for this change is utter nonsense - it distorts the feedback from the community in order to justify the predetermined outcome. The WMF has done it again. Yes, open the RFC. But there is a long term issue that can only be solved by devising ways of sanctioning WMF staff who repeatedly step outside their remit as a facilitator of the various communities. MER-C (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Whatamidoing: OK. That's better, but still, how is the "opt-in" determined? Is a vote taken or a consensus, or is that included in the information? I'll check. SelfieCity (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review for the word "opt-in" and got no results. SelfieCity (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review/results. SelfieCity (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SelfieCity, I was thinking about the recent announcements, which emphasized that if any group changed its name, that it would be a "voluntary, OPT-IN" process. Every project and organization has its own decision-making process. An affiliate might need a vote by its corporate board or by its formal membership, but a sister project might use an RFC or Special:SecurePoll. And that reminds me that AffCom needs to be involved in this, because their policies control which names affiliates can use. I'll go invite them in a minute. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Whatamidoing (WMF): So, this would allow an affiliate to identify itself as Wikipedia without requiring Wikipedia's approval? Could Wikimedia Poland speak under the name "Wikipedia Poland" against the will of the Polish Wikipedia? --Yair rand (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, AffCom ultimately controls the affiliate naming policy. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Could you also please take a stand to the strange evaluation of the community review results? Chaddy (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support a Wikimedia-wide proper community RfC on this. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chaddy, I'm still talking to User:ZMcCune (WMF) about that new metric, but I'm kind of thinking that it wasn't important in the end, because the qualitative feedback was so useful. Nobody loved all the suggestions, but nobody really believed that the current system is perfect, either. For example, nobody really seemed concerned about whether my wiki-friends at WPMEDF might gain the option of calling themselves "Wikipedia Med Foundation" in public, if they wanted to. I think this is as good a chance to improve the branding system as we're going to get in the next few years. I think we should take the opportunity. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of taking the opportunity,Whatamidoing (WMF), we are trying to understand whether the voices of communities are heard or not. In all the meetings in which I participate, people opossed. I asked many people, I'm part of Iberocoop and I still couldn't find a chapter or user group from there that tells me they supported the proposal. I read the discussion pages, the mailing lists, and participated in several discussions on various Telegram channels. Where are those who support the proposal? Which are the chapters who support the proposal? Which are the UGs? Who are the contributors supporter? I can't find them. Please, I want to see the explicit support of the affiliates to calm down. Metrics are very important. The lack of transparency is a matter of great concern for me. I can't find that vast majority of messages of support anywhere, that's why this raises a lot of doubts for me. The overall feeling of many wikimedians I talk to is that communities are not heard. --Jalu (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the message above. I definitely saw several messages concerned with the possibility that some organisation might call themselves "Wikipedia Med Foundation" or other name with "Wikipedia" in it. Did you mean that nobody is concerned because that option is not on the table? Nemo 10:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the Foundation referring to itself as Wikipedia[edit]

Because the community consultation apparently did not include the specific question, and to the extent that it may have been implied, the proposals did not achieve majority support, I have created Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia. EllenCT (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]