Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that Wikidata
will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a sad argument.
Use some hindsight and compare Wikipedia and its impact with Wikidata at
the same age, do the same for Commons. It is also a useless argument
because success comes in different shapes and forms and we should foster
success and value where we find it. The biggest issue is not to be
overwhelmed with the complacency that comes with what is mistaken as the
success of English Wikipedia. Complacency because English Wikipedia could
be much better.

We know our statistics and English Wikipedia is not 50% of our traffic. It
is where over 50% of our resources are spend. It is maintained by a bias
for everything related to what we do in English. We promote Wikipedia as a
tool for university students and its focus is the USA. The reality is that
we need high school students to write articles in most of our other
languages. Oh and do not rely on research; Wikipedia research is biased
because it is almost exclusively English Wikipedia what is studied. Even
when it is not, it relies on studies with the same bias.

When we truly want to be more international, we should focus on raising
money outside of the AngloSaxon countries. The money is there, just
consider known statistics. Spend everything that is raised "elsewhere",
elsewhere and add significant bias where we have the best 'return on
investment'. NB it is my business to know fundraising and we under perform
in the Netherlands by a large margin. There is no "need" to change our
really successful fundraising except when we use it as an instrument to
attract attention for our brands.

Both Wikidata and Commons are English. It is not that there are no projects
that use other languages within these projects but it is dominantly English
in the same way Wikipedia is dominantly English. Giving examples of these
projects is mistaking exceptions for the rule. Case in point; show me all
the Wikidata editors and show me those editors that do not communicate in
English.. show me their success.

When this notion that Wikimedia is English is to be countered, consider how
we can share our resources. For me the best example how we miss the boat is
found in Wikidata; we were promised an official replacement of Listeria.
Listeria is great but not good enough. The promise has not been kept, we
are still pissing in the wind and manually updating lists in the Wikipedias.

Please let us have a hard look at the efficiency at which we "share the sum
of all knowledge". Once the giddiness has left the house, let us work in
earnest and expand the 50% percent of our traffic and serve the underserved.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 06:38, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand.
> It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked
> society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.
>
> Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with
> the focus  and policies of one project.  So if we shift towards calling
> things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out
> of our way to expand its connotations.  That takes an internal campaign: w
> thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.
>
> SJ
>
> P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names,
> I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a
> chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.
>
> --
>
> On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih, 
> wrote:
>
> > Responses below:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> > > Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> > > Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> > > languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> > > created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> > > Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> > > Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> > > mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> > > from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> > > people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> > > projects.
> > >
> >
> > For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was
> one
> > of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
> > critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
> > quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
> > Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say
> that
> > the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Samuel Klein]

Wikipedia is clearly the core global brand.
It also has a prominence in the history of the Web and internetworked
society that Wikidata, whatever its future success, will never match.

Internally, as all have noted, the dilemma is that it is associated with
the focus  and policies of one project.  So if we shift towards calling
things "Wikipedia Foo" instead of "Wikimedia Foo", we will have to go out
of our way to expand its connotations.  That takes an internal campaign: w
thoughtful & responsive answers to common questions /concerns.

SJ

P.S. Personally, while these recs encourage keeping the old project names,
I think Wikipictionary, Wikipews, Wikipedanta and Wikiperversity have a
chance of becoming even more popular with new readers & contributors.

--

On Fri., Apr. 12, 2019, 11:33 p.m. Andrew Lih,  wrote:

> Responses below:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu  wrote:
>
> >
> > I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> > Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> > Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> > languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> > created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> > Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> > Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> > mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> > from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> > people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> > projects.
> >
>
> For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one
> of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
> critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
> quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
> Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that
> the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)
>
>
> https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/
>
>
> > > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
> > that
> > > was not true even 3 years ago.
> >
> > While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
> > but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
> > relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
> > about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
> >
>
> Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As
> a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we
> have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on
> Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared
> data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about
> why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.
>
>
> > Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
> > branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
> > or photographers.
> >
>
> This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force
> of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's
> mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my
> knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.
>
> Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
> > Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
> > required to understand how data is organized).
> >
>
> I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read
> to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of
> challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright"
> as the biggest user challenge we have. :)
>
>
> > This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
> > (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
> > largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
> > changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
> > holds true for the renaming.
> >
>
> Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia
> where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.
>
>
> > Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
> > single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
> > proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
> > should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
> >
>
> Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a
> broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.
>
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Andrew Lih]

Responses below:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:07 PM Strainu  wrote:

>
> I would argue that, on the contrary, for the outside word we were less
> Wikipedia 10 years ago. Around that time there was still hope that
> Wikibooks or Wikinews could still be successful, at least in some
> languages. New language versions of other projects than Wikipedia were
> created relatively regularly and many people who started with
> Wikipedia moved on to maintain and develop other projects. Today the
> Foundation has all but given up on all other projects except the 3 you
> mention below (and, to some extent, Wikisource), Google is taking data
> from Wikipedia (but prefers other dictionaries instead of Wikt) and
> people barely hide a polite yawn when you talk about the other
> projects.
>

For the record, I was one of the earliest skeptics of Wikinews and was one
of the first accredited Wikinewsies in 2005. I believed the best way to
critically understand its flaws was to actually immerse myself in it. I
quickly saw it was not viable, and memorialized my thoughts about it for
Harvard Nieman Lab (below). I say this not to brag, but simply to say that
the "hope" of that era may be overhyped. :)

https://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/


> > - We stand on three legs (and more): If there was ever a time that
> > Wikimedia was more than Wikipedia, it is now. The trio of Wikipedia,
> > Commons and Wikidata is the bedrock of open knowledge sharing in a way
> that
> > was not true even 3 years ago.
>
> While that is true, the monolingual nature of the last 2 has left all
> but the most determined outside this revolution. While not directly
> relevant for the branding issue, it partially explains why people know
> about Wikipedia more: it's in their language!
>

Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Wikidata is a "monolingual" project? As
a semantic database, it's perhaps the most multilingual-friendly project we
have. I've collaborated with Portuguese and French GLAM projects on
Wikidata because of how good it is at providing an interface for a shared
data set using the user's native tongue. So I'm eager to hear more about
why you believe Wikidata is in the "monolingual" bin.


> Specialization has clear advantages, but again, is not helping with
> branding towards the general public and that is our target, not GLAM
> or photographers.
>

This is a valid critique, though I'm not sure we've ever put the full force
of Foundation resources behind providing public awareness for Commons. It's
mostly been through community-level efforts and SiteNotice banners, to my
knowledge, for WLM, Commons POTY, Wiki Loves Africa, etc.

Not sure what the point is here. System biases are also obvious in
> Commons (copyright law) and Wikidata (very specific knowledge is
> required to understand how data is organized).
>

I think the point is: add the systemic bias of needing to know how to read
to the stack of the biases you also list here. There are a multitude of
challenges, and I think you absolutely win with "understanding copyright"
as the biggest user challenge we have. :)


> This war is specific to English Wikipedia and a few other wikis
> (admittedly, rather larger ones). Smaller communities have already
> largely embraced Wikidata in infoboxes and elsewhere. This has not
> changed how they represent themselves and I believe that the same
> holds true for the renaming.
>

Oh yes, there are many folks highly envious of Basque and Catalan Wikipedia
where Wikidata integration is used effectively on a large scale.


> Also, I believe it is mistaken to think of the branding proposal as a
> single, monolithic, yes-or-no proposal. It is rather a series of
> proposals, some easier and some more complicated to implement. Each
> should be analyzed independently for its own merits.
>

Agree. We won't know until/if it happens. I simply wanted to make sure a
broad set of concerns were being incorporated into the risk assessment.

Thanks
-Andrew
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Have I missed something, or this discussion is nowhere to be seen at any of
the Village Pumps of the Portuguese Wikipedia?
Also, is there any point in discussing this onwiki, as it was in Commons by
part of the community[1], if apparently there is not any following by the
people in charge of this process?

Why is this being planned to be presented before the BoT, without any
meaningful discussion of such a dramatic change at the projects where it
will have its impact?

Regards,
Paulo

[1] -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#WMF_proposal_would_rename_%22Wikimedia_Commons%22_to_%22Wikicommons%22

Elena Lappen  escreveu no dia terça, 9/04/2019 à(s)
09:58:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks to those of you who have participated in the branding project
> community consultation so far. We’ve received a lot of helpful feedback via
> email, on-wiki, and in small meetings with affiliate group members and
> individual contributors.
>
> I posted this invitation to the project talk page last week [1], but wanted
> to send a reminder here that we will be hosting a video conference session
> to give people a chance to see the presentation, ask questions and provide
> feedback.
>
> When? This Thursday, April 11th from 16:00-17:00 UTC.
>
> Where? https://bluejeans.com/540134391/browser, or call in using your
> closest local number [2] and enter meeting ID 540 134 391#.
>
> If you’d like to see the presentation but cannot attend, that is no
> problem—we will be posting a recording to Commons and putting the link on
> the talk page afterwards.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Elena
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review#Invitation_to_join_a_video_conference_presentation
>
>
> [2] https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers
>
>
> --
> Elena Lappen
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to
> ensure
> > we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible.
> ::
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
> > Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
> >
> > Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> > world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to
> get
> > a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> > public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
> >
> > We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> > our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was
> commissioned
> > by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> > directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> > perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> > Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> > values.
> >
> > The study revealed some interesting trends:
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North
> America.
> >
> > - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and
> is
> > fast growing.
> >
> > - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> > example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata
> at
> > 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
> >
> > - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> > reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its
> relationship
> > to Wikipedia.
> >
> > - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a
> high
> > level of support for our mission.
> >
> > Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> > strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> > suggestions include:
> >
> > - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> > drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
> >
> > - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> > which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> > other projects.
> >
> > - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> > that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
> >
> > - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert
> the
> > connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
> >
> > This is not a new idea.[7][8]
> >
> > By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> > them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> > collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak
> with
> > more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contribut