Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Executive statement

Where is any legitimate decision documented, that the change is valid?

Where is the valid community decision for the change of the name? Without it the WMF has no legitimacy for such a far reaching change. The WMF is not the boss of the Wikimedia movement, but the trustee of the community. The community is the ultimate boss. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Heather (WMF): You link some pages, that you say include decisions, that made the name change fix, I can't see any valid decision in these links, that fix any name change, let alone a valid community decision, that's a conditio sine qua non for such a far reaching change.

• In the Board minutes from 2015 the word 'Wikipedia is nowhere, nothing was decided at all about the name change.
• In the Board minutes from 2018 the board explicitely raised the importance of being thoughtful in engaging the community, but no community engegemant whatsoever has happened since, or better, every community engagement had the clear outcome, that there is no possibility to rename it to Wikipedia.
• In the Board minutes from 2019 Zack presented some survey. If I'm not wrong, it was the "survey" with the completely bogus numbers about support, where a clear rejection of a rename was changed by a misuse of irrelevant numbers to an acceptance. If this bogus numbers were really presented to the board, and thus the board was decieved by the team, the decision is not valid at all.
• I have absolutely no clue how this decision came through. At that time it was clear, that the community rejects the misuse of the name WikiPedia for the Foundation by a margin of 10:1. How such an explicit anti-community decision was possible goes beyond my comprehension.

So: Where was any valid decision, that justifies the bolded sentence on the other side, that it's a fait-accompli to change the name from Wikimedia to Wikipedia. You have not linked one. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the bluntest the WMF has ever been

...that they couldn't give a XXXXX about what the Community thinks of a change Nosebagbear (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 The same anti-wikimedian mindset, that created SuperProtect. They don't get it, that they are only our employees, not the boss. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

And after all they wonder, why we lost that much contributors... No respect. Why in the world sombody should give time, money and energy, yes, love, to this all? #NotMyFoundation -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I am grateful that they have stopped pretending that we have any say in this process, so we can stop wasting our time engaging in it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to leave a longer message here but I've decided it's not worth it. You just spat in the community's face. You can pat yourselves on the back. tufor (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I took the rude word away and replaced it with XXXX. There are people who have worked, put time into this and we need to respect that like we want to be respected. I am also grateful for the statement which clarifies (wether or not I agree is another thing). It is hard to communicate efficiently with 250 000 community members and over 800 wikis, in many many languages. I am thankful that it was translated in French.Nattes à chat (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

People who have worked and put time into that are getting a nice salary, and it looks like they started to forget what the source of this salary actually is.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Heather has not communicated at all here, and meta is the central hub for such discussions. No, this whole sham was just a huge deception of the communities, they never even wanted any input that didn't fit their private POV. It was full and complete anti-community behaviour, deception, betrayal, lies, bullying, all for this useless renaming nobody outside this small group wants. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please use respectful langage and avoid mentionning salary, it's quite normal for someone to get paid for a job, the result may deceive you, that does not give you the right to be so disrespectful. PLease can a sysop apply the friendly space policy, we are not on meta to read things like "You just spat in the community's face. You can pat yourselves on the back.". It makes one afraid of contributing at ALL when such behaviors are allowed. Nattes à chat (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but the complete front page here is extremely unfriendly. It's on the surface no bad word, but the gist is aggressive rejection of the community. Such anti-community behaviour like done here by the rebranding team is not friendly, regardless of the wording. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: Unacceptable behaviour from the WMF does not excuse unacceptable behaviour from editors. That said, with the exception of the profanity used, most of the above discussion is well within the bounds of civil discussion, in my opinion. --Yair rand (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion I perceive as overtly aggressive. It is possible to express how you feel instead of judging, and then what you need. I feel anxious about the tone and the assertions used here, it does not make me feel safe to participate in the discussion. Could you please reformulate using non violent communication and language acceptable in all cultures? Nattes à chat (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should your standards of “non-violent communication” dictate the borders of acceptability in this international movement? Maybe tomorrow any expression of disagreement with anything anybody from WMF said anywhere will make you feel unsafe, and should therefore be banned entirely, so that you can continue to “feel safe”?
The Foundation wants to “rebrand” themselves, and they have already decided when and how they will do it, but they know their shrewed community and expected some opposition, and therefore implemented a fake community participation process that was bogus from the beginning. It has never been the intention of WMF to honor the community consensus, and we all have been [CAUTION: SAFETY WARNING! YOU ARE LEAVING THE SAFE SPACE!! CONTINUE READING ONLY IF YOU ACCEPT BEING CONFRONTED WITH EXPRESSONS THAT MAY MAKE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!"] lied to. Being lied to your face does not bother you, as long as it is done using decent wording? You really feel more threatended by words (written on an anonymous online platform) then by real-world actions?
La tête secouée, Troubled @sset   ^{[ Talk ]}   13:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: I echo the sentiment of Yair rand, and I will add that incivility can result in a block. We are here for civil discussion of issues, and incivility disrupts that atmosphere. Thank you for your understanding, Vermont (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this kind of discussion are likely why so much people push for the universal code of conduct. --Misc (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, the only people pushing for the UCoC are the Foundation people, who finally want to have the opportunity to get rid of anybody who expresses any kind of disagreement with their activities. Probably they are just tired of having to set up fake community participation processes now and then.
Troubled @sset   ^{[ Talk ]}   13:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat and Vermont: Just pointing that you seem to be scolding Sänger (at least in part) for something they have not done. The message you censored here is not from them.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) copyedited.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep; I personally have no problem with what Nosebagbear wrote, and don't believe it is uncivil. However, from my interpretation of Sänger's comments it seemed as though they were justifying incivility (and writing some borderline uncivil comments themselves), hence my message. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with people, who use superficially nice words for total aggressive behaviour. People, who put wrap their utter disdain of the community and usurpation of power in fluffy wording and reprimand those who show them off because of the use of language. The whole rebranding enterprise was somethimng, were the souvereigns of this movement, the communities, were left in the dark. It was planned on false assumptions, with doctored numbers to push the agenda of the few, who for to me unbeknownst reasons wanted this desperately. The community was never really involved or asked. I have asked some questions in the very first paragraph here on this talk page, that still wait for an answer. Answers from those, who push this, are something very rare over all. Some fluffy, non-descript marketing-blahblah, that can be ignored because of the lack of content, but no concrete answers. That's all in all a very anti-community, anti-wikimedian, anti-democratic behaviour, that really reminds me of the extreme bad days of SuperProtect, as the WMF declared a total war against the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 02:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah... It's difficult to interpret this as anything other than "We apologize that we did not effectively communicate that we actually don't give a shit about your opinion." I could use less vitriolic language there, but I kindof feel like communicating vitriol is a bit of the point. GMG^talk 14:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed. How hard is to inform from the very beggining that a rename will happen? Not much IMHO. This is not a mistake in communicating, it's the opposite of communicating. They were even given the oportunity back in February when tufor asked for a clear "yes-or-no" reply, but they decided to remain silent. Now they're surrounded by evidence here, here and here that there's no support from the communities that this Corporation is suposed to help or support. This statement, no matter how do you dress it or embellish it, sends a clear message to all of us: the finger, with both hands. They took us for a bunch of patsies and they really belive we are. I've never seen such a contemptuous attitude. This is nauseating. Indeed, #NotMyFoundation. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for clarifying the position of the Board. I've been trying to understand, through months of discussion on different Meta-Wiki pages, discussions with staff members, and reading the various documentation, why the community has been ignored every step of the way. It would have been much easier and simpler if, from the beginning, it was clarified that the Board had decided to go through with rebranding to Wikipedia regardless of community input. Vermont (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked this exact question back in February, but despite pinging Heather and Zach twice and leaving messages on their talk pages I got no reply. #NotMyFoundation tufor (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I took the rude phrase away. I think disagreement can be expressed in an elegant and respectful way. I dont like the slippery trend on our wikis to use incivility as a way to denigrate people or people's work. Nattes à chat (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nattes à chat, doesn't this message belong in an above section? Vermont (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. But I took the phrase away this time ː)Nattes à chat (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not about being "unclear". WMF staff has simply lied all the time, saying that there was no point commenting on a rename from "Wikimedia Foundation" to "Wikipedia [something]" because the proposal was not even ready yet. Now, maybe they all propagated lies unintentionally, and it's possible that nobody knew what the WMF board decided because nowadays their decisions are kept secret and/or published after years, but the end result is the same and someone needs to take responsibility for it. Nemo 06:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Has there ever been a charity which has treated its volunteers with greater contempt?

"when community discussions began to sway toward attempting to prevent a rebrand, we failed in clearly and consistently responding that a rebrand itself was not up for debate. " - what's gone wrong with the movements relationship with WMF that they write this, when they should have wrote: when community discussions began to sway toward attempting to prevent a rebrand, we realised we'd made a mistake......

The overwhelming near-universal consensus expressed by 500+ Wikimedia volunteers that this is unacceptable is what is not up for debate. This cannot be allowed to go ahead, and we need to think very carefully as a movement about what we want our relationship with the WMF to be. Hint: no volunteer/no project wants a relationship like this.

A serious discussion about removing fundraising banners should be considered, I think, as it seems to be the only source of leverage they allow us to have. Acather96 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah loads. There's a reason volunteer relations are a big topic in third sector organisations. The foundation would at the very least have to try and steal the computer you are currently editing from to get into worst of the worst category.Geni (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did WMF ask the community what they thought about the rebranding?

If WMF had already decided that a rebrand will happen, in spite of the general disagreement from the community, the only sensitive thing it should do is to stop asking which options was less worse and go ahead to do whatever it wants. At least there would be no hypocrisy. --.mau. ✉ 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reasonable way to explain to donors why it was necessary to spend a horrendous amount of money in a process which was sort of a waste since the decision was already taken? --Civvì (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess media would be interested.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't. --Yair rand (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tbh, I doubt any of this happened with an actual plan. Given the amount of contradictions in statements between various groups of the WMF, it's clear that there's been very little communication between them. Multiple times so far, the liaisons said one thing and then the Brand Director completely contradicted them, and the executive statement also contradicts the understandings expressed in recent statements by multiple board members. --Yair rand (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is WMF just trying to fork from itself, again? Surely is trying it's best in pissing off all the people creating contents for them, for free. Next step is spitting in the face at all the little donors that gave you from 1 to 50$ a year to rebrand "Wikimedia" into "Wikipedia"? Good move, it will help spreading free knowledge to poor countries (where you know, people could not afford any other type of knowledge) spending a couple millions dollars this way, in spite of global community opposition. --Phyrexian ɸ 21:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Some questions

Heyo,

I think it's fairly clear that this hasn't best pleased many people, but I imagine that was clear from the start. I think it's important that this doesn't devolve into a shouting match, though, so I'd like to ask some specific questions, if that's okay.

1. When did the Board decide definitively that there would be a rebrand?
2. What was the justification behind this decision of the Board?
3. Was the decision of the Board published previously? If it was, why was this not publicised to the community? To the best of my knowledge, the only relevant Board statement is the approval of the Brand Project, which does not (to my reading) constitute "a decision to rebrand". If it wasn't, why was it not?

Thank you, Naypta (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Asymmetry of power

I find it problematic when the WMF staff pushes a view that they know to be controversial to the board, without a structured voice in the room to give the counter argument. The 2015 'request/decision' was actually documented as just a viewpoint of new board members, not something I would be concerned about normally. The 2018 'confirmation' (of what?) mostly reviewed a biased set of information (like a 'brand stakeholder group' consisting of WMF and WMDE staff only?) and does not mention any dissenting voices at all, against the obvious expectations. Now indeed, in the minutes of the August 2019 board meeting, it becomes clearer that this is a path they are set on - but again these are kept secret until well into 2020 and without any dissenting voices. The May 2020 resolution is vague, and does not make any acknowledgement of dissenting voices being considered. I don't just blame the staff for this, but the system as a whole - and the board as its guardian.

Can we acknowledge that the Communities are at least a Major Stakeholder? Can we agree that they have not been really consulted in a fair and unbiased way on the fundamental question? In fact, the thing that comes closest, is this Requests for Comments that was launched early 2020. I'll be the first to admit that such a RfC is highly biased towards the negative - people who agree with the perceived direction have less motivation to go there. But the consensus felt should give anyone pause - it is highly unlikely for the Wikimedia Communities to be so united in opinion. It should give enough pause to invite them to participate in a survey design that asks the tough questions. It should be sufficient to make sure that when decisions are being made, their voices are not silenced, but acknowledged. In the room where the decision happens. When the decision is made. I am not angry. I'm sad. Disappointed. And I feel ignored, and disrespected by the board, as a member of this community. This is not a matter of 'forgetting to communicate' (although that is part of how we got here). This is a matter of taking your (singlemost?) important stakeholder seriously when making decisions that impact them.

If I could suggest the WMF a way forward that I hope would at least do some justice to the dissonance (but you probably won't like it): allow a small group of volunteers some resources and let them build a counter narrative. Let them present the alternative voices, and their reasoning. Then, reconsider your decision as a board, but now actually informed with both sides of the argument. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is very well said, and why this is so tragic. The Foundation's main problem is that the community isn't considered a stakeholder in this process, despite the attempted identity theft of a community-run project's name. If they had considered the community, they would have more thoroughly considered names that were not Wikimedia or Wikipedia, and reported them to the board. The good news is there is still time for this process to start over, once the Foundation understands how much of a mistake it has made. This statement isn't dispositive, and doesn't have any more or less standing than any other member of the movement. (I don't understand why it wasn't posted to a talk page where it belongs.) And so the process still continues. TomDotGov (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to quickly acknowledge that a few individual board members and staff members did engage with the community, and that this probably leaked some arguments into the conversation.

However, I'd like to also point to a comment made by a board member in February 2020 in response to the RfC: "I don't think it is the time and place to ask our community as a whole about a specific opinion yet - the RfC was started way too prematurely. We should discuss the options, constraints, understand the needs of the future better, too - and for that we need data, as well as a constructive dialog. For now, having an RfC is more like a Brexit referendum - we don't know the hows and whys or solid analyses, and we're trying to jump to conclusions."

I don't know if the board itself was aware that they already made a decision on the rebranding. @Pundit: Could you clarify whether you were aware that you made such decision? I imagine there may have been a misunderstanding either by the board, or an over interpretation by the staff. Or could you perhaps clarify when you believe it would be the right time and place to ask our community for a specific opinion about using 'Wikipedia' in the branding? I don't like to drag out this conversation any further than we have to, but would like to see if we can find a joint way forward that makes sure that we can agree what the proper venue is for the community to be part of the decision.

Either way, the above still applies: I'm not aware of any unbiased but structured way in which the community opinions were considered in the underlying decision to fixate on 'Wikipedia' as the brandname and move away from variations on 'Wikimedia'. In part, we as the community are probably responsible for not properly organizing ourselves. You can add the feeling 'confused' to the list above. Effeietsanders (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Effe for this thoughtful and thorough discussion. You always warm my heart and remind me of why we are all in this together. Choosing the name Wikimedia in the first place, for the Foundation and the movement, was certainly an all-community affair. A lot has changed since then -- we've added many projects, WP has far outstripped all others in use and visibility, and has become a household name in a hundred languages. Now imagine that part of our movement has come to the conclusion that a) using 'Wikimedia' is no longer working, even running counter to our movement goals; and that b) we should shift back to using Wikipedia as metonym for our growing constellation of projects, aspirations, and partnerships. In that case, it seems supremely important for that group to explain this to the rest of the movement, and bring them on board such a shift.

Polls and surveys won't bring people on board. External brand advisors are hit-or-miss at the best of times, and no help in bringing people on board. So what to do?

~ We do need constructive discussion. People who are passionate in their belief of a) and b) should explain them, in their own language and way. We should focus on the central change, not possible extended / associated changes. Just convey this critical and significant change, the needs that motivate it, and what we might do about it.
~ We need some limited data, about both the merits and demerits of change as perceived by different audiences. It does not have to be excessive, but should be balanced: not just anecdotes for one of those sides, and not just responses to one type of poll.
~ We also need passion and coherence and style -- with which you can make even a brand like UGG or Smuckers or I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! shine. Spending time on committee discussion + review tends in the opposite direction, towards blandness. At that point we are just choosing the color of the chrome on the motorcycle set aside for jumping the shark. –SJ talk  03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The fundamentally weird thing about this is that Wikimedia is a bad name. The main problem is that it's too easily confused for Wikipedia. So what's the Foundation's Project Team suggest - Wikipedia, Wikipedia, and, um... Wikipedia. Which is the one word that's more easily confused with Wikipedia. So by their own standard, it's a bad name for the Foundation. The right thing for this would have been to run an RfC to let the community suggest names. Make it clear that if a name is tradmarked, it's a no-go. We'd come up with some name like WikiKnowledge, or better yet something in a language other than English, to improve our worldwide appeal.

But for some reason, this project thinks the community can't come up with ideas. And so they think the only way to get an authentic brand is to steal from the community. TomDotGov (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

TomDotGov: I've said this before elsewhere today: I don't rule out the possibility at all that the community would arrive at the same point as the Communications Team has. But you're totally right, they may also arrive at a third option. But in those cases, at least the community would feel emboldened and ownership of that decision.

SJ: I would love your approach even better. My proposal forward was already a compromise away from that, because I don't get the impression that the WMF staff (and maybe the board? Unclear.) has its heart set on becoming the Wikipedia Foundation. If there is significant support in the community for that new name compared to the status quo, then for Heaven's sake let's go with it, given the funds that have been spent on this. I am not convinced of that at all though. I do know that whatever process comes after this, it should maybe be run by a third party. Because I suppose there may be people in the community who feel that the Communications Department is not currently able to hold an unbiased view or support/run an unbiased process, given the poll designs. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders:, I’m truly sorry that you feel this way. It reflects a real disconnect between our intentions and how we are coming across that we really need to fix. I have a lot of respect for community and also for our Board. I do not believe that I or my staff pushed a view onto them; we shared with them the data we collected, including links to community discussions. In answer to an earlier question you raised, we do see our communities as major stakeholders. This is why we review our research, proposals, and conclusions with our communities so often and so publicly. It is why we invited community members to define the brand in Zoom calls, and in-person workshops at the very start of this project. It was our intention when we launched brand discussions in 2019 to hear viewpoints, and those viewpoints did have considerable impact. For instance, from direction shared in 2019, we made the outcome opt-in and paused to explore more options at several points. Participating in new branding is offered as optional to anyone else who is interested, and it will not change the names of any public wikis at all.

The decision that a change was necessary to improve our branding was made some time ago, as I understand it. The specifics of what that change might look like have evolved and have included close legal evaluation of some of the other alternatives proposed (by my team and Snøhetta in acting on community suggestions), which did narrow the field of possibilities. For instance, some proposals relied heavily on the generic term “Wiki,” and we were told that this would be difficult to defend. The trademark “Wikipedia” is already protected as well as widely recognized. The specific decision not to retain “Wikimedia” was only recently affirmed to me, but I do understand the reasons behind it, and have been part of the the detailed research on our movement brands over multiple years.

We still very much hope to invite participation in selecting the best of the options on the table and, as mentioned, offering feedback on how those options might be recombined. I understand that there is disappointment among some as to what those options are, and I am sorry that you and others as well may be feeling sad, frustrated, and confused. No decisions on this difficult topic have been made lightly, and my project team will do the best they can to make sure that your perspectives are heard. While the Board and Foundation Executive staff will make the final decision, your opinions and perspectives do matter. -ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"to make sure that your perspectives are heard" 😂 --> "we hear you, but don't talk to loud so its more easy to ignore you" ... (if WMF would really care they would see Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia - IMO its overwhelming. So don't pretend you care if you don't) ...Sicherlich ^Post 08:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ZMcCune (WMF): "your opinions and perspectives do matter" - How come they mater, if all you have to present us are three variations of the very option that was widely rejected in all public interactions you had/have with us, and which is directly against the 2015 suggestions recalled by the Board, increasing confusion and donor deception by dressing the Foundation with the clothes of Wikipedia, as if it was indeed the volunteer-built Encyclopedia people want to donate to? --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ZMcCune (WMF): "The specific decision not to retain “Wikimedia” was only recently affirmed to me." By who? All the input we're getting from Board members is that the Board has not decided to rebrand yet. See, for example, the discussion at Jimbo's talk page. I'm wondering if there are problems with communications inside the WMF. TomDotGov (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zack,

I honestly appreciate the work you and your colleagues do, and have a lot of respect for each individual. What I'm ranting against, is the system we created together, that resulted in this "disconnect". I don't doubt the good intentions, and that as an individual you're trying to consider input. The system somehow resulted in a situation where the community is not taken seriously because it does not dare present it with the question at the foundation of this whole issue: Is it worth changing.

There are however some conflicting signals as to when the decision that moving away from "Wikimedia" was made, and by who. While Heather talks in the past tense about this decision, and suggests it was made a long time ago - both Dariusz and you seem to suggest it has not yet been made. This together is again resulting in a disconnect: the community is being told not to discuss this, both because it's too late to discuss it (the decision was made ages ago) and because it's too early (see the quote from Pundit).

As long as there is no structured way to get opposing views presented in the room where and when the real decisions are being made - I don't think the 'system' really considers our opinions and perspectives. If it was a single opinion, you could get away with considering it in the preparation to the meeting. If it's this big a chunk of the community speaking up, it should be taken more seriously. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ZMcCune (WMF) and Heather (WMF): Nothing in this statement shows a real and valid decision by anyone, that a change to WikiPedia has to be done without any alternative, even if you really think a simple board vote would be enough for such far reaching decisions. Yes, there were this early presentations, were it looked that way, but that were only presentation with no decisive value whatsoever. On the other hand, you always pretended, that the community should be involved in this process, and the community has made a clear and unambiguous statement, that a use of WikiPedia for the foundation is no option at all, it did so even in the first survey, where it voted 57:12 against this renaming. So it was clear from the beginning, that this is something unwanted by the community, but you still went on with this, and you can't deliver even a sliver of evidence, that the decision was really made the way you try to tell us. And you still spout off about community involvement, while you ignore everything the community is saying. I really can't come up with your intentions, they were definitely not "working with the community", as you did the very opposite. You somehow got the impression, that a decision towards a renaming was done, but can#t deliver any prove for that. The community on the other hand has a very solid proven decision, that your unfounded renaming option is out of bounds. It really is a disconnect, and I see it between you and the reality of this grassroots movement, where there is no central deciding body.. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ZMcCune (WMF) and Heather (WMF): The trademark “Wikipedia” is already protected as well as widely recognized - Are you implying that "Wikimedia" is neither protected nor widely recognized? I don't know about protection and I really hope it is protected, indeed; as for recognition, here in Italy we struggled for years but nowadays even the press :-) knows the difference between the encyclopaedia and the movement. So this sentence of yours is true but irrelevant in this context. --.mau. ✉ 13:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Legitimacy of this decision, legitimacy of the Board

Since the Board unilaterally decided by decree and without any community consultation nor discussion to postpone this year elections and extend the 3 community elected members mandate (which was already extended by a extend it's mandate from 2 to 3 years|previous resolution) one additional year, on account of Covid-19, I wonder what is their legitimacy to face everybody now with this highly controversial and extremely divisive unilateral decision to rename the Wikimedia Foundation with a variant of "Wikipedia Foundation", in full knowledge that this is an highly stressing and consuming decision for the whole community. The pandemic was bad enough to postpone the elections, but now, with it raging on, it's OK to just throw this whole earthquake at us? And even worst, not directly and frankly, but by way of a WMF staffer? An explanation from the Board about this would be more than welcome, as soon as possible.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear that the Board has approved much more then exploring ideas for a rebranding - especially not the inanity that all three ideas have to include "Wikipedia". It's very important to realize that this is just another statement from a Foundation employee. Those haven't been particularly accurate in the past, so why would this one be different, just because it was inappropriately posted in mainspace rather than on a talkpage? Certainly, it seems like the board has been reluctant to say anything other than this project should, at some minimal level, proceed.

And it should - just not with a poll that can't lead to the obvious conclusion. That despite it being really difficult to find a name that doesn't include Wikipedia, the community considers the identiy theft that the Foundation's brand project team is trying to pull off unacceptable, and hence one of our parameters is that it won't happen. It's not like the number of people opposing the current path the Foundation is taken isn't going up, and it's not like the survey, in it's current form, is likely to be considered acceptable as a CentralNotice.

That being said, I think that it would be absurd for the Board to make major changes like this without first standing for election. TomDotGov (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding " the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to revise its name"

No, the foundation doesn't have this right. All rights, the foundation has, are delegated to it from the real superiours, the community. Without clear community consensus, the foundation cannot and must not make any changes, that are as severe as a name change. All such far reaching decisions have to be vetted by the community in some kind of RfC or such, the WMF alone has no authority to do such far reaching decisions on their own. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 05:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Though I may agree with your sentiment, that's factually inaccurate. The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation does have the right to change it's name, change policy, and change basically whatever they want. To quote their bylaws, "All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the Foundation shall be managed under, the direction of the Board of Trustees either directly or through a written delegation of authority." Best, Vermont (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, and ISOC thought they had the powers to sell .org to the highest bidder, but in the end they didn't, probably in large part because the Attorney General of California disagreed with the sale.

I also suggest legal to re-read all the contracts signed with third-parties across the years, which are not published. I've read some and you may have some surprises. ;-) Nemo 06:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

So far the Board / WMF had guts to reverse bad decisions they were pushing through against the community will, even though they had perfect authority to implement these decisions. The one which went the farthest was the superprotect, it was featured prominently on the Board elections following it, and it was reversed with apologies. Taking a decision against a very clear will of the community is just not reasonable. May be we have to go through the whole cycle, with Board elections, taking off fundraising banners, subsequent reversal and apologies, but it would be much easier for the Board to stop this right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed an hell of a time for putting up this war against many of the volunteers that collaborate in building this project. I'm still hoping there was some kind of misunderstanding along the chain of command, and the Board in fact never approved what Heather (WMF) stated in their name. It's outrageous that we couldn't vote for the community members because of the pandemic, and now, in the middle of the pandemic, a board that has 3 members with a temporarily extended mandate of dubious legitimacy, takes this kind of decisions of colossal proportions with a deadline inside that mandate? And with a timeline totally inside the expected pandemic timeframe, which seems to be hindering almost everything in the WMF but the Branding Team? What is this? There's no way this can be right.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is a well-known or well-established pattern which so far occured on every Wikimedia Foundation scandal. One member shows up, makes a statement, which the board seems to never have officially decided on. The member takes all of the shit-storm, the board never reacts, and the electable board members wonder then later, ater they all have been voted out after the next election why they fell in the communities's dislike or worse. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My general feeling is that there is a limited right for the Wikimedia Foundation to change its name, up to the point where it increases confusion. If they wanted Wiki Movement Foundation or Wikifoundation or even something like Antiqaria Foundation, I'd be fine with that. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is to steal the identity of another portion of the movement, without that other portion of the movement's consent. I think that how the non-Wikipedia portions of the movement feel about the rebranding is also very important, and should be considered as a matter of comity. TomDotGov (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Trumpization of Wikipedia

What we see is the Trumpization of Wikipedia. It's benefits have been stolen years ago by the WMF for their own use. They believe on the fucking marketing shit of rebranding. Which never ever in history has been successful, or at least there does not exist any proof of a successful rebranding. Every rebranding lost money, trust into the product, and customers. Only marketing agencies benefit from rebranding.

Well, what to say...? I even cannot say that I am disappointed. In fact, I expected this outcome. For years the WMF did alienate itself from the communites by doing bad things like image filter, superschutz, VE, Flow, FRAM ban, T&S. This row of WMF measures have been hurting the communities and damaging the relationship between them and the WMF. Whereas within many of the communities especially the board became a highly distrusted body.

Next month it will be 14 years I am spending time in Wikipedia, and for twelve years I am writing a considerable part of all of the articles in the German language Wikinews. As a Wikinewsian I understand the rebranding as a slap into face. Why? Because I am a Wikinewsian and rebranding Wikimedia as Wikipedia Organization means that the WMF only has interest in its cash-cow Wikipedia only and does not count on the sisterprojects. Meanwhile in reality, Wikinews might be and should be the most important project in a world of fake news and propaganda, for which even the U.S. seem to be an excellent example, with Fox and Breitbart publishing lies and the WPost and NYTimes hiding themselves behind paywalls. There is no further need to point out on the exigency of a free press in countries like Poland, Hungary, and Turkey, and many many others, where the free press is on retreat. Not talking about Belarussia, Azerbaidshan, China... But the WMF does not get it. When talking as Wikinewsian I am sure, the folks at Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, and Wikibooks share my point of view, though the have their own specific needs.

Obviously the WMF isn't glad with the communities anymore and is looking to install another community called The Movement. In my humbled opinion Wikipedia isn't a movement. It's a place where we spend our free time like any other hobby, e.g. soccer or collecting stamps. Maybe it's time that the commnities are looking out for a new foundation.

Note: When I used the term "communiies" I was including all kind, no matter by language or sisterprojecct without claiming that each one is sharing my opinion. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As a Wiktionarian+Wikisourcerer+Wikipedian and other projects occasionally, I can say I share your point of view on the WMF disregarding sister projects. Noé (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we agree that comparing someone to Trump accomplishes the same as what is implied by w:Godwins Law? Such comparison is not really enlightening, and mostly accomplishes insult. You won't convince anyone with that. I understand the sentiment behind your message, but please: leave American politics out of it. Effeietsanders (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess, to the extent that the intended meaning is "condescendingly authoritarian", then there is probably some sympathetic agreement there. GMG^talk 14:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

But yes, this comparison is truly enlightening. Mautpreller (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No, Effeietsanders, we did not agree. Compare someone with Hitler would mean to compare someone with a man who is Co-responsible for the death of some dozen million human beings. To say an organization is trumpish just means, that they did not longer care for other opinions, is autocratic, undemocratic, unfair, greedy and despotic. All this fits 1:1 for the WMF. Please don't try to kill such correct critic with "Godwins Law". This is far away from this! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts by an editor

"We", that is the active editing community at large, don't need WMF members to accept responsibility for "bad communications", but what we need instead are different behaviour and different decision making processes by the WMF.

There seems to be an inability within parts of the WMF to see the community as an integral part of the Wikipedia and its decision making processes. From my perspective the WMF is turning into an ever increasing (potentially self serving) bureaucracy with an identity crisis, probably due to the clash of corporate culture of social media enterprises and (and at times questionable fund raising optimization strategies) of various non-profit organizations on one side and an open source type community and global volunteer movement on the other. As a result the WMF seems to keep pushing things, that the community (at least in that form) neither needs nor wants, with the potential of creating a lot of disenchanted editors (at a time where WP is desperately seeking editors) and ultimately being harmful for the scope and quality of the encyclopedia.

Another way to look at it, is that the WMF needs to decide whether its priority actually lies in branding and donation optimization to support an ever growing bureaucracy or whether it lies primarily in serving and supporting the community.

Or for yet another comparison from the product world. It feels like prioritizing packaging over content or branding over engineering. While one can argue that in a profit driven market such priotizations do make some sense (at least in terms of temporary profit maximization), they make much less sense for a project like Wikipedia though. In fact many members of the community probably joined the project because it was not driven by such market rules.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is what we were saying all the time since at least the superprotect. And the problem is indeed systemic. I interacted previously with Elena and Quim, and I know that they are reasonable people who certainly appreciate the importance of the connections to the community. I am really sorry that they have to do now what they have to do. I have never interacted with Zack or Heather but I am sure they are wonderful people and qualified professionals. However, when we have collection of all these people built in into the structure, we see that the result is absolutely miserable, that really serious mistakes have been made, and that in the end of the day the system acts again as if the community is a collection of some annoying individuals who ideally would just not be there. I am sure at some point someone will quietly find another job, and then this person will be declared to be an architect of all this disaster. And this happens over and over again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. There are plenty of good people at the WMF, and I have more confidence in WMF's senior leadership now than at pretty much any point in the past. But still, we end up with this kind of problem. Which is part of the reason why I believe the structure is the issue. And, indeed, why the strategy recommendations ended up including significant, if gradual and slow-moving, changes to structure. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This might be a small thing but

Regardless of what I think of the rebranding I do take issue with your text that this started "at the request of the board in 2015". Being an active participant of that Board meeting I did not recall that, and reading back the minutes I find that this was specifically NOT a request of the board. One (or more) of the new board members indicated that "Some of the potential goals included assisting the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community, addressing some technical challenges, resolving potential branding inconsistencies or confusion..."

As the minutes state: "No final decisions were made on these topics. Lila and the executive team will evaluate those ideas and make further recommendations with advice from the Chair and the Vice Chair for wider consideration at future Board meetings"

So no... at that time this was not a request from the Board. Things might very well have changed since, but then please use that as a source rather than these minutes. Jan-Bart (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A curious reference indeed. You are right, we did not make such a request. It has been a while, but things in the air included making use of our major brands to promote and connect our less well-known ones and potentially redoing the WMF's visual brand which had extremely low logo-recognition, and had not been updated since Neolux's poll-winning design in 2003. I don't recall that extending in any sense to renaming the WMF.

You know that my primary contribution on the branding front was advocating that we spend less on the Wikimedia mark, particularly the visual one, given that we had little practical need to defend it and would likely redesign it one day! ;) Given that I was unsuccessful - we spent millions to defend it in even the smaller jurisdictions and have not yet updated it - I am particularly sad to see this deprecation.

This historical confusion about the ownership and origin of ideas and directives, worries me most about this process: it suggests that whatever the outcome, it will have no staunch and enthusiastic supporters. A change this substantive should be driven by a core group of enthusiasts excited for it, demanding it, persuading and enthusing others about it. If anyone has that joy right now about any of the proposals, I haven't seen or heard it. If we don't have that, it's actually quite risky, from a brand perspective. We are all our movement's best ambassadors, and noone is at their best when shy about using their own foundation's name. –SJ talk  19:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Jan-Bart! I agree it's not a small thing. There is no legitimacy without accountability, and providing false or misleading information about who's responsible for a decision undermines the very foundation of accountability. Nemo 19:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jan-Bart, I remember Your name from other times, I would have said worse times in the relationship between the WMF and the volunteers in the projects, but I am not so sure anymore. Thank Your for Your insight, that provides some transparency and openness, that is missed too often in the communication of the WMF nowadays. --Magiers (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's true those notes do not indicate a request, but it was the best public item I could find and I wanted to be transparent without going into a bunch of distracting qualifiers. I was on the Communications team, Katherine was CCO at the time. We were directed by then-Executive Director Lila Tretikov to prepare and present to the Board, at the Board's request, about changing the Wikimedia brand in November, 2015. I interviewed Board members and every c-level executive at the time to prepare for the presentation. Here are the slides we presented. The Foundation did not publish presentations along with Board minutes at that time. Katherine changed that practice when she became ED, and now board presentations are published along with the Board minutes. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying, and for sharing those slides. I was no longer on the Board in that November meeting; that looks like a better source. And your slides make a lot of sense -- all points that remain relevant today, including the challenge of changing (or repurposing) strongly-held community identity. –SJ talk  02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Heather. To others: As I mentioned in the Telegram group I am not arguing with the fact that a brand strategy is important (I am grateful that staff members are spending time on Brand strategy, as the brands of our movement are some of the most valuable assets we have). I was simply pointing out that in 2015 the board did not request a change in the branding of the Foundation (although this has been talked about a lot over the years). Honestly I do not recall the discussion on this presentation during a board session but I am with SJ that most of the contents of your presentation remains relevant five years later. Jan-Bart (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

TLDR for busy people or who hates reading a wall of text

We don't give a shit about what you say. We will do it anyway, whatever you say, or whatever you think. You have no say about this. So stop complaining and follow the leadership of the Almighty board.

Seriously what the. — regards, Revi 18:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, how they want to get back to "community input" for their plans regarding Strategy, UCoC and so on from here. --Magiers (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh by the way, 2020's WMF somewhat reminds me of Lila Tretikov. — regards, Revi 21:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The right of the WMF to choose its own name - but not Wikipedia

Let me start by saying that I have not yet decided what I think about the overall rebranding process.

But there is one thing that @Heather (WMF): said that strikes me as odd:

"Whatever the precise solution, the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to revise its name for strategic reasons that serve the sustainability of the movement and our shared vision."

Yes, of course you have the right to choose your own name. Nobody in his right mind is challenging this right! You have to consider many aspects of branding, like long term donor relations, like trying to attract new editors, like positioning yourself as one of the great advocates of free knowledge within the political sphere, and so on. In addition, you have to choose your name wisely, to have the biggest impact possible. If you feel like “Wikimedia” is not working for you any more, than you should definitely make a change and find a better name.

But: You want to choose a name that is already taken, a name that is simply not available to you – “Wikipedia”. It is the name of an encyclopedia, written by thousands of volunteers for the last nearly 20 years. When you rebrand the WMF into the Wikipedia Foundation, you are taking away the brand value of “Wikipedia” from the communities, which created it in the first place.

I am proud to call myself a Wikipedian. It means: “I contribute to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia.” I might or might not see myself to be part of a larger movement – but when I call myself a Wikipedian, I am explicitly referring to my contributions to the encyclopedia. If you, the WMF, are renaming yourself into the Wikipedia Foundation, you take away something from me. And you cannot do that – because the value of the Wikipedia brand is exclusively created by the people who contributed to the encyclopedia. I value the work of the WMF, and I served for five years as the ED of Wikimedia Germany. And I would have LOVED to have had the opportunity to call myself the “Executive Director of Wikipedia Germany” – but I never was that, and it took me a lot of time to understand that I can speak for Wikimedia, but not for Wikipedia. If you take away the name “Wikipedia” from the communities (and that is what you would do by naming yourself after the encyclopedia, even so it is not your intention), you could create a tsunami that you would not be able to control. Please reconsider.--Schreibvieh (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Well put, Pavel. I recall well how much frustration the name "Wikimedia" has caused for all of us in outward-facing roles, where we would often be met with confused looks or responses like "But that's not related to Wikipedia, right?". I suggested a Wikipedia-centric branding system when I was still a volunteer Board member, but that proposal was widely rejected by those who cared to weigh in. My takeaway was that changing the brand system was not a very tractable problem, and I gave up on it.

An alternative to "Wikimedia" that a large number of folks would get excited about may well exist (my first thought was "Wiki Knowledge Foundation", but that's a bit too close to the name of another organization you once led ;-). Perhaps the answer is to finally embrace the silliness of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia naming and make it work in product and site design, logos, public comms, and so on.

While part of me would be pleased to see the organization called "Wikipedia Foundation", I am inclined to agree that the cost of such a move may be too high. I also worry that its legacy could be to increase, not decrease, confusion and frustration for those who join the movement. --Eloquence (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Back in the days, I used to say: "let´s just mumble after "wiki" (not sure if this works in english. "Wir nuscheln nach dem Wiki....")--Schreibvieh (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pavel, and Erik, for weighing in; I'm glad we have your long memories still, and your perspectives. I think the moment has passed for when we were giddy about branding and rebranding and new names; and Pavel, I admire your sense of stewardship. -- phoebe | talk 02:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• It still communicates to the community that "we don't actually give a crap about projects besides Wikipedia". So, I mean, thanks to all you people who have donated millions of hours of time to projects that are not Wikipedia. You are at best an afterthought. GMG^talk 21:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Well put Pavel and Erik. Let's "finally embrace the silliness" indeed. Isn't "rule 0" of Wikipedia that it only works in practice and not in theory? (Although Elinor Ostrom wrote that when this happens maybe the theory should be fixed.) Part of the issues with "Wikimedia" are not issues at all, part are self-inflicted. The Wikimedia Foundation stopped even trying to use the "Wikimedia" brand properly about a decade ago; meanwhile, clear abuses of the "Wikipedia" brand have kept increasing and the communication of our values kept decreasing.

  The dereliction of duty in pursuing the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is so severe, that now some executives openly state they gave up on even trying to work towards it. But we were already suspecting it for a few years now, when we saw the Communications department walk further and further away from Wikimedia and free knowledge values, in many acts of ineffective communication but most visibly in its botched website migration and clumsy logo changes. Nemo 07:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Just stop

Let's just stop. There is just too much wrong with this whole situation.

1. The WMF does not have the authority to rename itself "Wikipedia" against the wishes of the community. Someone might object that I do not properly understand the legal position - the WMF owns the trademarks and can legally do what it wants. If someone raised that objection, I would tell them that they might understand the legal position, but they don't understand anything about how the Wikimedia movement actually works.
2. This whole statement really doesn't engage with the community participation from the 444 - last time I looked - volunteers who have gone to the unofficial RFC and said "just no, don't change your name to Wikipedia".
3. Any credibility that this whole project had with much of the community has been undermined by the way it's been conducted. There was the point last year where we were told that because 57 people of 10,000 people who had viewed a page, there was 0.5% level of opposition - then I was sceptical. Now we've spent 6 months holding consultations and workshops on the pretence that switching to "Wikipedia" was not in fact predetermined, and now we hear that it was predetermined some years ago.
4. Neither of the proposed names are actually any good. I have not encountered a single person inspired or energised by them. I have however encountered a lot of people holding their tongues because they don't want to rock the boat (which is a common feature of what happens when teh WMF is about to make a mistake...)
5. No-one has addressed the actual problems of including "Wikipedia" in the WMF's brand. They are, so far as I can see:

   The fact that Wikipedia volunteers (or at least a large number of the more active ones) appear to prefer to maintain a distinction between the projects and the supporting organisations.

   That non-Wikipedia editors do not want it implied that the projects they contribute to are less important.

   That many Wikimedia organisations have some concerns about being too closely identified with Wikipedias, for legal reasons.

   No-one's done anything to try to solve any of these problems, except by making bits of the core proposal optional which will result in a confusing mish-mash of different names and inconsistent trademark uses.

6. We're left in a position where it seems the WMF is saying "actually, we don't care what feedback we're getting, we're going to go ahead with something despite clear opposition from the community. And we can, because we hold the legal power to do so." Every time that I've seen the WMF force through a change despite this level of opposition, it's ended in tears. Don't do it again.

Regards, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Chris.--Schreibvieh (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Great statements in the two above sections by Pavel and Chris. If rational arguments do not work (not for the first time), at least the history should teach us something.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 Effeietsanders (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I also totally agree. Érico (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll...I'll say this an then I'm off. I've got pings I haven't responded to yet, and I'm not really in a great place to even ground-level in-the-trenches edit a whole lot given the whole world ending plague thing.

I'm not saying this is correct, and I apologize for using expletives, but it's difficult to see this as something other than the Foundation hiring a consultant to find out how can we get more goddamn money.

I don't like to pull user right cards. I don't claim any of my user rights on other projects except for here on Meta where is seems relevant. But as someone who is an admin on Commons and a crat on the English Wikiquote, this just looks like (apologies again) "Fuck you. You don't make us any money." GMG^talk 22:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm with Chris, completely. I'd only add that we are on the edge of a black hole, from which whatever falls into the hole will never come back. Trust in the Foundation, first of all, and the energy to keep on volunteering in "its" Projects immediately after. Wikipedians, just like users in other Projects, thought they were called to have a say in this business. As usual in wiki contexts. As natural in wiki. But something in some passages of this manoeuvre didn't sound clear to many. So they asked. Users asked, as usual - or should I say, they dared to ask. At first they asked politely. Then they asked more clearly. The answer came only yesterday. 4 months after. In the meanwhile the process kept on running; but with an unanswered question. An answer came, yesterday, and the best was yet to come, because immediately after, some of the the "explainations" were followed by denials that anywhere else would have been seen as embarrassing.
  Now, users might at times have an optimistic idea about their [volunteer] work, might perhaps be not always as humble as the Wikiquette recommends us, but there is something they did, and they did it because they are Wikipedians (or other WikiColleagues): they presumed good faith. And they continued to imagine a world, here in wiki contexts, in which consensus is important, communities matter, users are respected.
  In a wikipedian state of mind, I ought to conclude that no sources could today confirm that their imagination was right; and no facts would, as well. Users here aren't worth an answer to a clear question, at least in a reasonable time; rather, they are kept losing time and dignity into a discussion that someone knows that will not be considered at all. It's easy to win when your opponent presumes you good faith, it's not at all a score if you "win" in such a display. In military terms it would be the conquer of a monastery, of a nunnery. Clever. But users didn't know that there was anything to win. And no one told them. The gentle possible interpretation is that users are considered not sufficiently intelligent to understand the importance of the move, so no need to explain (I would have never bet that one day I would have found such a deep knowledge of Wittgenstein in smart marketers). In Wikipedia we do grant the utmost respect even to the youngest newbie coming to help, maybe this is part of the reason why you now want Wikipedia's name, and not another one, because Wikipedia respects anyone and this grants us an unexpected respect when we go presenting it to Parliaments and universities, institutions and media. Yes, they know Wikipedia, they are not interested in anything else. They donate to Wikipedia, what an astute discovery you made. Yet the affair couldn't be explained to veteran Wikipedians, they wouldn't understand. We are not so keen, indeed, we are not prepared to such a sophisticated communication, true; sophisticated professionals can deal with that. For instance, one in the Community Relations should; yet he was asking, this afternoon, for a mediation in something which is the ordinary trouble we cope with every day in Wikipedia in nervous discussions. A communicator at the highest levels in our system asking for a mediation! This is for the superiority tones that pretty anyone here is showing towards the community.
  Ok, we take all these lessons of style. But this is not the point. The point is that now we are on that famous edge of the hole. I do believe that now the Board - not the Staff - will have to say something very short and very clear. The Board is going to stop it or the Board isn't going to stop it. In a reasonable time, please, because now the silence will really mean NO.
  In case of a negative answer, I do believe that the next steps would imply, as an unavoidable consequence, a reflection within and among the communities about the good and the bad of an eventual hypothesis of separation of the infrastructure (servers, domains, etc) from the other activities of the Foundation. Seems like a lose-lose scheme, but its' not because of the communities. They would be eager to be WITH the Foundation in next January to celebrate 20 years of a dream come true. Communities WILL celebrate. Here or somewhere else.
  Now it's up to the Board: will you stop it? --g (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I’m absolutely with Chris and with g: this is enough, I feel truly mocked. Ferdi2005_[Mail] 07:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• +1 Well put Chris. Multichill (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• +1 to both as well 'though I don't think it helps anyhow, as the WMF never used the skill of listening to the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• --Perfectly expressed. Point #3 is the aspect of this I find the most damning. Acather96 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong solution to the right problem

I was one of the people who was interviewed in 2016 by comm team and I stand by everything I said, "Wikimedia" is unfamiliar to people and I used "Wikipedia" to describe my work (for example in interview for visa for the conference I went to and gave the aforementioned interview) and I still do (while I admit, it's not as bad in Germany as it was in Iran, maybe it's the work of WMDE, I don't know.). Everyone knows Wikipedia while barely anyone knows Wikimedia and that's a big problem. "Wiki" as the umbrella term is not good, aren't you tired of telling people "Wikileaks" is not related to Wikipedia at all? That's why when I first read the proposals (and the other ones, I follow the rebranding project and tried to give my feedback as much as possible), I was like "sure" but the more I thought about it and the more I read arguments, the more I got convinced renaming anything to Wikipedia is not a good idea. What Chris said in #Just stop sums it up perfectly.

I think renaming things to "Wikipedia" to give them more recognition is more a quick and dirty solution to a hard problem. The right thing is to increase awareness about "Wikimedia" (I just checked, the button on bottom of pages that says it's "a Wikimedia project" is only 80px and hasn't been refined for years, why this hasn't picked up?), neither the Wikipedia app nor the mobile frontend mention "Wikimedia" at all while the majority of our traffic comes from mobile. Why? You can add a small tooltip or note close to sidebar saying "A Wikimedia Project" and so many more work that would help. For example, "Alphabet", Once google announced it, instantly everyone learned the new brand (even though they haven't tried to advertise the brand at all) but why we haven't achieved the same with Wikimedia in the past 15 years? What's the reason? Amir (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That point is not disputed at all. I'd argue pretty much any editor is aware of that, but they nevertheles do not want that name change. This is because they do not rate the (improved) name recognition for the WMF as important enough, in particular when it comes with a lot of drawbacks (from the community's perspective). Or to put it this way: The name change is "better" for the WMF but "worse" for the community and it is the blatant disregard for the community's interest that pisses off so many editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A call for Board statements, and disappointment

As a former member of the Board of Trustees, I would like to call on members of the current Board to weigh in: if this was decided by the Board, current members need to state what was decided and when. It is unclear from the public record of minutes and decisions. This is a Board-level decision: the Board are entrusted with the stewardship and fiscal responsibility of the Foundation. That grave responsibility includes, without a doubt, something as major as a name change, and particularly a name change that will cost a great deal both in money and in volunteer time, and has such far-flung implications. I would ask our community trustees @NTymkiv (WMF):, @Shani (WMF):, @Doc James:, @Raystorm: and @Pundit: to comment in particular. This may be uncomfortable, but leadership at the highest levels is in this case needed, from our community: not from a brand agency on a commission.

As an individual editor and as someone who has done a great deal of outreach about both the Wikimedia movement and our many projects over the last fifteen years (including co-authorship of a book; speaking on five continents about the projects; organizing dozens and dozens of community conferences and outreach events, including many Wikimanias; personally bringing in and training hundreds of new editors; and helping build the network of librarians that contributes to Wikipedia throughout the world), I am profoundly and completely disappointed in the slip-shod research and methodology and air of foregone conclusion that has gone into this years-long process, for changes that I would argue no one in our movement is passionate about (but only tolerant of at best, and disgusted by at worst).

To argue that changing the Wikimedia brand will assist with outreach and new contributors implies the positioning of the Wikimedia brand and the Foundation in the center of our movement in a way that is inaccurate, full of hubris, and damaging to the good will and good faith of the volunteers who spend their nights and weekends making Wikipedia, and our other projects, the household name that they are. To argue that Wikipedia is the limit of our ambitions and our only core identity is insulting and dismissive to the thousands of editors who join Wikidata and Commons every day. It is an unnecessary change, and an undesirable one, and I am ashamed of us. As a community, and as a Foundation, we should take our research, and look at it with the neutral, clear eyes for the truth that we stake our reputations on. The results of all the research that has been done shows there to be little community support for this, that the results are muddled at best, and that we are a unique community that is not amenable to traditional market research and theories. The cost of a name change to our movement is huge; the benefits vague and untested at best. I would be willing to go along with a name change, even though I personally think it's the wrong move, if there was clear evidence that it would be helpful to our communities and our work. But there simply is not, and I fear that if our WMF leadership cannot recognize this that they are poor stewards of our true brand: that we are a community that believes in clear-eyed facts, good communication, consensus-driven decision making, and a willingness to change one's mind in the face of evidence. I would ask that the leadership, including @Katherine (WMF):, Ryan Merkley, and @Heather (WMF): reconsider by pausing this process, taking another look at the risks, benefits and comments gathered so far, and not hang our progress towards 2030 on this divisive -- and ultimately I fear ineffective -- issue. Let us spend our time, energy and money telling people what we believe in, and why we believe it: a goal that goes far beyond Wikipedia itself. -- phoebe | talk 02:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

And here comes the next former Board member: Yesterday I reached out to Maria, Nat and Dariusz to share my concerns especially with regards to transparency. I strongly believe that transparency is essential to create and retain trust and to demonstrate good leadership. Resolutions are the tools boards use to do this. It makes me sad when I read resolutions like that about affirming the support for the branding project from May 20 in the light of this statement. The resolution now reads like misleading information by purpose. If the board already has decided that a renaming will take place, why don’t you tell it in clear words?

It hurts to see that a communication strategy again does not work with the community, but even more it hurts to see that this kind of calculated intransparent communication made it into publishing solutions. This is the place where the board can present their capacities and wisdom and leadership. And I still believe that the WMF board acts in a model role for our movement to some degree. Be better than other boards. Be honest and respectful. You can!

I said it more than once during my time on the WMF Board: Clarity is key. Especially in an international movement with different cultures it is essential to be honest without disguise. And this all is anything but clear. Please change that, and please stop the process, reflect and reconsider as Chris said above. Alice Wiegand (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all. Just a quick note that the board is following and is working on a statement. Thank you for your patience. Shani (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Phoebe: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. A statement from the Board is forthcoming to clarify some misunderstandings in communication. I don't want to step out of line, so I'll only share one personal reflection: for some reason a discussion about Wikimedia brand conflated the movement naming conventions with organizational naming conventions. The latter (including the formal names the affiliates choose for themselves) is clearly a discussion that should be held separate from projects and the movement naming and branding. Pundit (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Pundit: If you believe that the community's primary issue is the continued ability of a chapter to call itself "Wikimedia France" while affiliating with the "Wikipedia Foundation", you have misread the situation greatly. It's not clear if this is what you meant, but if this is what the board is planning to clarify with its statement, please know that this is not the crux of the matter.--Pharos (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Pundit: It is very important that the Board understand that the proposed taking of Wikipedia to name things other than the encyclopedia project is not simply an organizational naming convention. You've said things like this multiple times, and I wonder if the Board was misinformed either to the contents of the naming convention proposals, or the depth of community opposition to such a renaming - which has never been less than 2:1, and is now so large it is hard to measure any support. TomDotGov (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear: what I'm saying is that we SHOULD be having separate conversations, not that we're super precise in making distinctions right now. Because of the movement strategy planning and discussions which were held in parallel these issues were conflated, and they shouldn't. We should talk about organizational names, and we should talk about the movement AND project naming conventions, but the community's decisive voice in these does not have to be the same, and also these names do not have to be the same. Honestly, if there is an affiliate that for whatever reason does not want to use Wikimedia in the name, why should the community force them to? However, I personally can't imagine a situation where a name is forced on a movement or a project community against their fierce opposition. Instead of trying to solve all names at once we should be clear about separate threads, as they pertain to different contexts, situations, and needs. Pundit (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Pundit: I've prepared a graphic showing how I think the community sees the naming proposals that the Wikimedia Foundation's Brand Project team produced. The Foundation proposes diluting of the identity of Wikipedia to cover things that are not encyclopedia projects. That both affects the trust that has been built in Wikipedia, and neglects the other projects. I believe that while support for the expense of branding may be tepid, the real opposition is from the way that all three naming schemes involve the use of "Wikipedia" for the Foundation.

Any board statement needs to directly address the question the RfC asked: "Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?" TomDotGov (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not also forget that affiliates have membership, and members decide on the name (within legally permitted bounds). WMF does not have membership. Concerning the Board statement, may be we should just wait for it. By now we have all indications that it is forthcoming, and that the Board members are aware of this page.Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the try to seperate the discussion of organization name and movement name, when in reality the "movement" is a construction, that was invented from the organization to suggest a fellowship under their lead and name. There are very diverse people working in the projects. What they identify with is their project, its rules and its name, not a fictive "Wikimedia movement". Every disctinction between "movement name" and "organization name" (especially when the result should be: communities have only a say at the first, not the latter) is blurring the real problem, that the RfC adressed: "Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?" --Magiers (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Pundit, thank you for your thoughts, but respectfully I disagree. I think we are all quite clear on naming of the organization versus affiliates versus projects. However, the organization (by which I assume you mean the WMF, or perhaps the affiliates) is not a private organization unconnected to our work. The WMF hosts our projects, collects our fundraising, makes forays into public policy, and does much other good work. This, in fact, is the argument *for* changing the name: that the organization is tightly coupled to our outreach and public image of our projects. While I disagree with this part of the analysis -- I don't think the name of any of our projects is relevant for new contributors -- I and everyone else here does care what the organization is called. Please read Pavel's comment above, where he speaks eloquently about stewarding (one of our organizations) versus the project. To argue that the movement, Foundation, affiliates and projects might all somehow be different is to argue for less consistency, more confusion, and I think undermines the entire argument that has been put forward for a name change. -- phoebe | talk 14:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; the administrators/bureaucrats should apply the consensus, but it seems that WMF not. There are a lot of reason for oppose at Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia#Oppose, but WMF ignores the result of the RfC and the opinions of the wikimedians. Why? In this case, WMF should said "We don't care about the result of the RfC. Don't waste your time with it". I will say "Wikimedia Foundation", not "Wikipedia Foundation" (or other name), because this is the name decided by wikimedians, even if other name will be that official. WMF (probably) will take the "Wikipedia" name, but the "Free" part from "The Free Encyclopedia" seems to lack (not from the foundation's name; from WMF itself). --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Reclaim the Logo, v. 2.0

The year was 2013, and the Wikimedia Foundation was pushing through with their trademarking of the Wikimedia Community Logo, i.e. the logo that adorns the top-left corner of this particular wiki. Despite the fact that it was created to be free of copyright and trademarking restrictions, the Foundation decided to register it as their trademark; despite community concerns, and the subject being brought up in multiple places, from multiple people, they decided to take ownership of a symbol that never belonged to them.

This situation here reminds me very strongly of the feelings of 2012–13; perhaps because I was present when the Wikimedia Community Logo was created back in 2006 (shortly after becoming a Wikimedian myself) and partially because I was one of the people who stood up and did what it took to have their voice heard, with @Nemo bis and @John Vandenberg by my side.

It felt to me then—and it feels exactly the same now—that the Foundation underestimates the importance of symbols that we, the volunteer communities who create, develop and manage the projects that they have the honour to steward for us, have created ourselves, adopted by ourselves and came to love and appreciate in an organic, grassroots way.

I remember very clearly that back then, as we do now, we were dealing not with heartless bureaucrats raining decrees from their ivory towers, but with dedicated colleagues who had a fundamental lack of understanding of community feelings. I also remember a discussion I had with one of the people who were on the other side of that particular debate, years later at Wikimania is Esino Lario, Italy. They told me they were sorry, that they thought we had been right all along, and that they wished it never took Federico, John and myself taking the issue off-wiki to resolve that problem in an agreeable way.

I am struck at how similar this situation feels now; and left to wonder if the only way to have the Foundation listen to our feelings and opinions is to organise ourselves and take direct action rather than continue to discuss it endlessly—only then to have the Foundation realise they were wrong all along.

I wonder if this, right here, is perhaps a Reclaim the Logo v. 2.0, or, indeed a Reclaim the Name, situation? Can this debate only ever be resolved, can our voice only ever be heard, by taking steps in the world of not-a-wiki-talk-page? The cost then was €1,100 and a few kilobytes of e-mails and wiki pages. The cost here, I fear, might be much higher than this; and the winners can only ever be the lawyers.

That direct action of a right bunch of rogues was what swung it then, and I wonder if we should not rule out a similar decisive action all these years later.

Sadly, history does appear to really like to repeat itself. odder (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)