Hoi,
Please take a step back. The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in a way
specifically designed to prevent the community from taking over. The
problem with the community is that there is no community as such; there is
a movement that includes different communities with different needs and
with different expectations. The bottom line is what we are there for. For
me it is sharing in the sum of all knowledge. Depending on how you look at
it we do a great job or we have the biggest job in front of us. I think we
have our biggest job in front of us.
The notion of Wikipedia something is from a marketing point of view easy.
It is the best known brand and it has a huge recognition, a huge positive
recognition. However, where we are weakest our brand is weakest and as such
it makes sense to go Wikipedia. From a community point of view, it is
problematic. For me the most problematic part is that Wikipedia is
primarily associated with English Wikipedia and it prevents modernisation
even when it will improve its quality.
We should not burden our movement by identifying it with this
Anglo/American legacy.
In conclusion, the Wikimedia Foundation is structurally separated from by
those people who address themselves as the community. Like me, they are
not. Unlike me they do not consider why marketing has a place in our
movement and, it is more than just getting attention for the Wikipedia
product.
Thanks,
Gerard
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:01, Dan Szymborski <dszymbor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What
> exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between
> the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full
> responsibility was taken?
>
> Is the board changing the degree to which it will consider community
> opinions?
> Is the board allowing a wider set of possibilities of new names?
> Is the board granting the possibility of no change at all?
> Is the board inviting additional community representatives to the board for
> the limited purpose of deciding on a new name or whether to rename?
> Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
> with the community resigning from the board?
> Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
> with the community recusing themselves from further votes on this specific
> matter?
> Are you, the person who is taking "full responsibility," resigning from the
> board?
>
> As far as I see, absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, certain things
> have been made even stronger against the community. Why, in a plea to
> better communication is it necessary to remind the community that the board
> can do whatever they want?
>
> "However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
> name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
> decides."?
>
> Imagine I'm driving with three friends in my car and we're deciding where
> to go for dinner. They all say "anything but pizza." I respond, "well, I
> have the keys and you're in my car, so it's pizza."
>
> After some grumbling, I tell them that their opinions are important and
> that they can pick the toppings for their pizzas. Well, not pick the
> toppings, but they can choose between "pepperoni," "extra pepperoni" or
> "half-pepperoni."
>
> Naturally, there's some consternation about why I'm doing this and how
> that's not exactly a choice. Then I remind them that I'm still picking the
> toppings too, but their input on whether we get pepperoni, extra pepperoni,
> or half-pepperoni is super-valuable and will be taken into consideration.
>
> But I take "full responsibility" for people being unhappy with dinner
> choice! Oh yeah, I absolutely get to decided whether we have pepperoni,
> extra pepperoni, or half-pepperoni, because, well, I have the keys and it's
> my car and it's too bad.
>
> But they're all super appreciated and their opinions are valuable!
>
> One thing I've learned from my years at ESPN/ABC is when I'm being fed a
> line of nonsense through the medium of vanilla corporate-speak. And, I'm
> sad to say, the community is being fed a massive heap of nonsense. None of
> this will change until such time the movement itself is treated like a
> *real* stakeholder, not simply the conveniently unpaid employees of a board
> with unlimited discretion to do whatever it wants, irrespective of any
> opinions of the community. Until such time as there's a state in which the
> board recognizes that they're the servants of the movements, the people who
> turn the steering wheel of the ship and not the captain, this state of
> affairs will continue to exist.
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:44 PM Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> > [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for
> all
> > the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> > engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> > have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> > Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> > our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> > information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
> >
> > In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> > recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the
> Wikimedia
> > projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> > global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> > that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> > understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
> >
> > In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> > Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively
> long
> > term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> > convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> > our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> > the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> > Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from
> the
> > minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> > possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> > considered [3].
> >
> > And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of
> something
> > like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> > sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> > just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> > convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> > initiative.
> >
> > The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the
> way,
> > including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> > However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation
> about
> > what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to
> balance
> > feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
> > communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
> > exploratory project was and still is ongoing.
> >
> > The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
> > process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
> > volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
> > manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
> > people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
> > previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community
> or
> > the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand
> project
> > based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or
> removal
> > of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
> > mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
> > purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
> > hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
> > created a lot of bitterness.
> >
> > I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
> > conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
> > mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also
> know
> > the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities, so
> it
> > is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We are all in this vicious
> > circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do
> not
> > talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I truly want that to change.
> > So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective.
> >
> > The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already
> been
> > decided by the Board” [4]. What does it mean? The brand project was
> > approved by the Board in 2018. Rebrand may include: names, logos,
> > “taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An
> > outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding
> > practices.The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet.
> > However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
> > name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if
> it
> > decides.
> >
> > Has the Board made the decision to change the name of Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > yet? No, the Board has not. In 2018, the Board agreed that the name of
> the
> > Wikimedia Foundation does not help us with our strategic goals. From
> > 2018-2020, the Board has been reviewing research and participating in the
> > brand process with the goal of finding a better name. The Board has not
> yet
> > made a decision to change the name to another name, as the Board has not
> > yet had a final report on the results of the Brand Project, or the
> > opportunity to discuss the findings and tradeoffs, and make a decision
> for
> > what the Board will do. The Board conversation about this is planned to
> > happen during the August meeting.
> >
> > Did the Board want to possibly have the rebranding (if approved) to take
> > place before Wikipedia’s 20th birthday in January 2021? Yes, in a way.
> The
> > resolution [5] talks about the work being done by then, but it is indeed
> > unclear whether the changing of the brand was included or just the
> > completion of the research by the Foundation. The timeline can still
> change
> > if the Board decides it.
> >
> > Should the Board be clearer in what the Board is directing the Wikimedia
> > Foundation to do? Yes, I believe so. Some of this unclarity and
> > misalignment is the cause of all this unfortunate frustration.
> >
> > What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding?
> > The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3)
> > continue with it.
> >
> > Does the Board still want you to take the survey [6] then? Yes. The
> > currently open survey [6] is intended to find the best possible outcome
> if
> > the Foundation's (!) branding were centered around Wikipedia, and your
> > voice is needed. It is an opportunity to provide constructive feedback on
> > those alternatives. If you are engaging in discussions around it, please
> be
> > kind to each other.
> >
> > Do all organisations in our movement have to have a uniform name? Per the
> > Board’s resolution from 2013
> > <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11#Movement_roles>
> [7]
> > - yes, but it was a decision made at that time when the Board believed
> > there was a chance to increase visibility and recognition of Wikimedia
> as a
> > brand. It is 2020 now, and it may be the right time to loosen up on this
> > approach and allow all organisations in the movement to use different
> names
> > [8], best suited for their local context. Or keep uniform names, but
> allow
> > using any of our brands for fundraising purposes. Or something else. The
> > Board does have a sense that there is a need to be much more
> > outward-looking and optimize our key assets, including our brands, for
> the
> > challenges to come.
> >
> > All across the Movement we have a lot to do to accomplish our 2030 goals
> > and build out our movement strategy. And that work can be done as the
> > Wikimedia Movement, Wikimedia communities, and the Foundation even with a
> > new name, depending on our needs.
> >
> > Stay safe,
> >
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> >
> > Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> >
> > [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2020-02#Board_Business
> >
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_for_2030.pdf
> >
> >
> > [3]
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
> >
> > [4]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Executive_statement
> >
> >
> > [5]
> >
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> >
> >
> > [6] 2030 Movement Brand Project: Naming Convention Proposals Survey:
> > https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
> >
> > [7] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11#Movement_roles
> > [8]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Naming_guidelines
> >
> > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> working
> > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> > advance!*
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
