Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming convention proposals/Naming FAQ
Redirect page
 | There is an ongoing RFC regarding proposals to change the name of the Wikimedia Foundation to use the name Wikipedia. |
| The neutrality of this page is disputed. Relevant discussion can be found on the project FAQ talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. |
These are frequently asked questions pertaining to the naming phase of the Movement Brand Project. For additional answers to general project questions, see The project FAQ.
| Phase 2: Naming 2030 Movement Brand Project |
|---|
What is a brand?[edit]
A brand is a simple yet powerful way that organizations and companies communicate who they are what they stand for. They pack a lot of meaning into a small amount of space, using things like naming conventions and design elements (colors, typefaces, symbols and more) to build familiarity and associations for the public. These associations help people easily recognize and connect with a product, service or cause.
Why is having a clear, consistent brand important?[edit]
Having consistency across branding helps people quickly identify the range of products, services, organizations, and groups that fall under that brand. A clear, consistent movement brand will highlight the vastness of our ecosystem and help explain how the different projects, communities and organizations come together to create free knowledge.
Why does the Brand Project involve a change to naming?[edit]
A change in naming is a central part of the Brand Project, which aims to help us reach our 2030 goals by creating a consistent, compelling brand that inspires new people to join us. Research has shown that Wikimedia is a poorly recognized name that does not convey associations with a global movement of interconnected projects and communities. This means it is not helping us explain who we are and what we do. A naming convention that is more recognizable and evocative of an entire movement will be a better tool for both highlighting the work we are doing across projects and inviting new people in.
Is the status quo (naming based on Wikimedia) an option?[edit]
This project aims to address a number of issues that have already been identified with the term “Wikimedia”. In addition to being mostly unknown, the term “Wikimedia” also does not help to highlight our entire movement of projects and communities, or to communicate how all the elements of our movement relate to one another. Moreover, press, donors, and members of the general public routinely change “Wikimedia” to “Wikipedia” because they are just one letter apart.
In spite of these obstacles, the Brand Project team is interested in understanding the full range of benefits associated with staying with the status quo, if that option is appealing for your affiliate. The survey for the naming convention proposals has an open response section where respondents can suggest Wikimedia and expand on its merits if they choose.
What will happen with the results from the naming convention proposal survey?[edit]
The movement-wide call for feedback on naming convention proposals will happen through surveys and through discussion on Meta-Wiki. Surveys will be given to individual contributors, affiliates and Foundation staff. All data will be published on Meta-Wiki, with responses from individual contributors made anonymous. The Brand Project team will analyze all data and publish a report on the outcomes. The outcomes will be used to help remove, refine, and recombine elements from the different proposals into a single naming proposal.
How were the three naming convention proposals developed?[edit]
The work around naming has centered on the 6 Movement Branding Criteria, developed during the 2019 consultation, and the brand concept, interconnection, developed during in-person and online community workshops. Coming directly from community feedback, the Movement Branding Criteria and the brand concept interconnection have been critical to developing compelling naming ideas that capture who we are as a movement and invite new people to join us.
With these guiding principles in mind, our branding partners, Snøhetta, developed several naming ideas for review by the brand and legal teams. Their ideas were tested against the project goals, the Movement Branding Criteria, and the brand concept, and were then reviewed for legal feasibility. The ideas were refined and presented to the Board of Trustees, who expressed alignment with the three options being presented for community review.
Why is Wikipedia important to this project? How could using Wikipedia bring awareness to the sister projects?[edit]
We are fortunate to have a name in our movement that is one of the most recognized in the world. Research into associations with Wikipedia reveal that it is understood by the public as a vast credible knowledge resource, not just an encyclopedia. This provides us a unique opportunity to use the Wikipedia name to introduce our projects and communities to those outside our movement that share our commitment to free knowledge. A name that utilizes Wikipedia and also underscores the existence of a surrounding movement allows us to transfer trust and positive associations onto our other projects, and invite people to explore everything else our movement has to offer.
How will a movement name with Wikipedia in it not be confusing?[edit]
- This section is disputed, see the related discussion.
A vast majority of our users, donors, and partners identify our movement with Wikipedia already. They know Wikipedia, but have not heard of our other projects and organizations. For these audiences, the naming changes proposed allow them to see the vastness of our movement’s sister projects, affiliated organizations, and free knowledge commitments. To reduce potential confusion between the Wikipedia project and the movement, the naming convention proposals rely on terms that are used alongside the Wikipedia name. These terms draw attention to our entire ecosystem and invite people to explore it. While experienced community members adept in the nuances of our movement may need time to adjust to this change, it will create a clearer, simpler message for those who share our mission and should be empowered to join us.
How would a movement name with Wikipedia mitigate legal risks, when some risks come from proximity to Wikipedia?[edit]
Overall, we have strong legal rights to use the Wikipedia name, to modify it, and protect it, giving our Movement comprehensive power to this identity legally.
Reputationally, we know that some affiliates are concerned about having Wikipedia in their organization name, because they fear they will be blamed for Wikipedia content by government, business, press, and possibly general public members. The fact that this issue already exists indicates that the name “Wikimedia” is not helping avoid this confusion. The Brand Project sees a name change as an opportunity to add consistency, clarity and differentiation to our movement names, and uses additional naming elements to highlight the distinction between projects and organizations, among other things. Clarifying our names allows us to clarify movement roles.
Were there other naming convention proposals that did not end up in the survey? Why were they eliminated?[edit]
Snøhetta suggested three additional naming ideas that, after careful consideration, were determined not to meet the project’s goals and/or were not found to be legally feasible. The three options are listed below, with the primary reasons they were not deemed strategic or feasible:
- W - The use of “W” as a standalone term is currently in use by other organizations and businesses (W Hotel, W Magazine, W for Women, for example). Its only direct associations with Wikipedia/Wikimedia are through current app icon and favicon. Finally, it relies entirely on one Latin character and thus has no clear path to localization.
- Free Knowledge - While this phrase could help explain who we are and what we do, it is not unique to our movement and is not a proper name. This would make trademark registration difficult if not impossible. This phrase is also not currently associated with our movement specifically, meaning we would need to invest significant resources in global marketing, likely over many years, to establish the association between this phrase and our movement.
- Wiki (used as single term) - With hundreds of existing “Wiki” trademark registrations, and its use to refer to collaborative software, the “Wiki” term is extremely difficult and expensive to protect. Additionally, attempting to claim the term could prevent open source communities around the world from freely using it in their work.
For more information on legal review of naming ideas, see the Legal commentary subpage.
Does the Foundation have a preference for one proposal over the rest? Or one outcome over the rest?[edit]
We’ve looked at these, and others, for a WHILE now. Please, bring your fresh eyes and perspectives to help us decide what should stay and what should go!
What parts of the movement will the proposed naming changes apply to?[edit]
Names will be proposed for the affiliates, the movement, and the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as for a tagline that will help unite all the different elements of the movement. No changes will be proposed to the project names. Because they are not changing, the project names will be considered alongside the proposals to ensure that the entire system works well together.
While the new brand system will include a naming convention for affiliate groups, no group will be compelled to change to that name. Each group will be able to decide whether or not they would like to opt in to the new brand system.
Why do the Movement Branding Criteria appear to be externally-focused?[edit]
The Movement Branding Criteria came from community comments in 2019, and are reflective of the branding concerns people find most relevant. They represent areas of need for both internal and external communication. Confusion, for example, was the single most discussed need for good branding. The comments on confusion called for improvement to aid both people inside and outside the movement, who both struggle to understand all of its many parts and determine who does what in our projects and communities.
Some criteria focus more on internal or external audiences. Growing the movement, for example, focuses on external groups exclusively and communicates the need for branding to make it easy for people to join the movement. The power for affiliates to self-determine if, when and how they adopt the changes is a fully internal parameter.
Why does the survey not ask us to compare these proposals directly to current Wikimedia branding?[edit]
Wikimedia may work well for some groups, and groups who want to keep Wikimedia branding are free to do so. We also know that Wikimedia branding does not work for everyone. Research has shown that “Wikimedia” remains confusing and unknown to the outside world. This project is about developing an alternative to “Wikimedia” that will serve our movement needs and help us reach our 2030 goals. The naming survey, therefore, asks people to review ideas for alternatives. These ideas are the result of design work and of integrated feedback from communities. They have been vetted as both strategic and feasible by the Board and the Legal team.
The proposals are starting points for discussion, not a vote to decide which option wins. Because this is about developing the best alternative possible, the status quo is not presented as an option to evaluate. Those who believe that Wikimedia is better than possible alternatives are free to use the open response section of the survey to suggest Wikimedia and elaborate on its merits. Those responses will be analyzed and reported on alongside all other data. Affiliate groups who have decided they will keep Wikimedia can opt not to participate, as changes will not apply to them.
What will happen to the results of the survey? Does my survey response count as a vote?[edit]
The outcomes of the survey will be used to remove, refine and recombine elements from different proposals into a single proposal. The goal is to develop a single proposal that uses and refines the strongest elements from each proposal, not to host a vote to decide which option is the best. The outcomes will be reported on and made publicly available.
|
|
|
What will happen to the parts of the movement that use Wikimedia that are not listed in the proposals?[edit]
The proposals are a starting point. They are not finalized or complete. We are aware that there are other parts of our movement that are not explicitly listed in the proposals (Wikimedia mailing lists, event names, hardware/software, domains, etc.) Survey data will help remove, refine and recombine different naming elements into a single proposal. At that point, we can begin to consider how the name may apply to other parts of the movement. If you have suggestions you would like to include in your survey, we would be happy to hear them.