Thanks WSC; elegantly put. On survey process: seconding what others have said, if you have gotten ~1000 of a desired 4000 responses, and haven't asked two questions that you realize are essential, yes it is absolutely worth running a new survey w the new options.
You can even identify cross-survey-iteration correlation : after drafting an updated survey (and a banner for it) you could randomly offer 20% of participants the _old_ survey and use correlation there to infer a way to jointly interpret both versions. S. On Mon., Jun. 29, 2020, 4:35 a.m. Ariel Glenn WMF, <ar...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability > of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the > table, the options were narrowed to "Wikipedia plus some term" for survey > purposes. While the survey is thus useful to see which Wikipedia-based name > community members prefer most, it excludes the options "no change" and > "change but not to a Wikipedia-based term". > > It is possible that people crunching the numbers already know what > percentages of the community(ies) support the other two options based on > rfcs and so on. If this is so, it would be great for that information to be > made public. > > If however those numbers are not known, I would urge that an addendum to > the survey be run that asks people to select one of the following; "no > change", "new name containing the term Wikipedia", "new name not containing > the term Wikipedia". I believe that even if this would cause the timeline > to slip a little, it would be worth it. > > Ariel "Wearing sporadic-volunteer hat" Glenn > > [1] > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Naming_FAQ#Were_there_other_naming_convention_proposals_that_did_not_end_up_in_the_survey?_Why_were_they_eliminated > ? > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Natalia, > > > > I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a > > survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The > > problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to > be > > designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than > > find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in. > > > > "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I > am > > not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are > > sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some > > people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of > the > > WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just > > Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a > relatively > > harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of > > projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have > been > > my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without > > differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some > > sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured > child, > > does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, > don't > > change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is > also a > > position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary". > > > > > > Regards > > > > WereSpielChequers > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300 > > > From: Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps > > > Message-ID: > > > < > > > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation > Board > > > of Trustees about the Brand Project. > > > > > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was > supposed > > to > > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project > > were > > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from > > changing > > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to > > what. > > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but > > if a > > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have > > been > > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been > > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our > > > August meeting. > > > > > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about > > the > > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The > > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working > on > > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are > > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is > > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is > needed, > > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can > > have > > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision. > > > > > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the > > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional > option > > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with > > more > > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the > > survey > > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey > will > > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed > > to > > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote > > on > > > whether to adopt them. > > > > > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows: > > > > > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to > > review > > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive > the > > > briefing on discussions happening; > > > > > > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be > > > posted publicly after the meeting; > > > > > > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, > not > > > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to > > stop, > > > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a > discussion > > > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps. > > > > > > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps > > about > > > the Brand project. > > > > > > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on > > renaming > > > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the > > position > > > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and > that > > > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are > also > > > some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and > > > communication after them will address the concerns raised in the > letter. > > > > > > Stay safe, > > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv > > > Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > > > > > [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD > > > > > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
