3 ms·

Oh, it's one of those "if it ain't broken, ruin it by rebranding" moves that we've seen play out so many times, is it? Great thinking. People know that Wikiped

Oh, it's one of those "if it ain't broken, ruin it by rebranding" moves that we've seen play out so many times, is it? Great thinking. People know that Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia, it's in the name. Let's make it stand for many things that are not the encyclopedia. If there was a Wikipedia article about it... Oh wait, there is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Brand_extension_and_brand_dilution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Brand_extension_and_bran...

romwell 6y ago
They are accepting comments at brandproject@wikimedia.org Here is what I sent them, if anyone wants to follow: ---------------------------- Hello, I am writing to you regarding the rebranding proposal to use Wikipedia for projects that are not Wikipedia. In short: please don't. This is a plain example of brand dilution. The brand has a clear meaning: Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia. The trust and widespread acceptance of the brand comes from this clear association. Wikipedia doesn't stand for the news. Or for the books. Or for pictures. Or for media. Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia, which is valued as a source of knowledge, and is held to standards and format that other Wikimedia projects don't have to follow. A "Wikipedia article" is an encyclopedia article. It's not a news piece, not a book, not a picture, not a data set, not a dictionary definition, nor any of the other things that Wikimedia projects attain. By making Wikipedia an umbrella brand for all of those, you kill the brand, plain and simple. Please value the efforts of all people who made these projects possible, and keep Wikipedia Wikipedia. Sincerely, --------------------------- Another option is using the talk page [1]. If you also think that Wikipedia should only stand for the encyclopedia, make your voice heard by either of the means. [1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedi...
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Seems like the discussion is marked closed.
  - metasj 6y ago
    Ongoing discussion here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedi...
- joshuaissac 6y ago
  There is also an RfC on the matter with a majority of voting editors opposing the change proposed.[1] Considering that the WMF has allocated $800k for rebranding efforts for this year,[2] and has already signed a contract with Snøhetta,[3][4] all with no consent from the community, I wonder how willing they would be to walk back on their position. 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Requests_... section "Comments" 2. Ibid, image/PDF in the section "Joint strong opposition to the branding process from the Catalan Wikimedia projects & Amical Wikimedia (WMCAT)" 3. https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-skape-en-ny-visuell-profil-for-wikipedia-eier https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-sk... (in Norwegian) 4. https://brandingwikipedia.org/ https://brandingwikipedia.org/
mmanfrin 6y ago
This is Wikimedia changing to the name that a majority of people know it from, this is not them going from Netflix to Quikster. If I tell my mom to look up something on Wiktionary, I don't tell her it's the same group as Wikimedia, I tell her it's part of Wikipedia, even though the former is correct and the latter is not. In her mind, and in the minds of practically everyone outside of tech, Wikimedia is Wikipedia.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > If I tell my mom to look up something on Wiktionary, I don't tell her it's the same group as Wikimedia, I tell her it's part of Wikipedia... Why say either? Not only is it untrue and misleading, but it is entirely pointless, far as I can tell. Does anyone except a certain type of contributor, or staff, care that Wikimedia is an organization? Conversely, is anyone going to pay enough attention to understand the subtleties of "Wikipedia Encyclopedia" where "Wikipedia Dictionary" is somehow not part of an encyclopedia?

romwell 6y ago

They are accepting comments at brandproject@wikimedia.org Here is what I sent them, if anyone wants to follow: ---------------------------- Hello, I am writing to you regarding the rebranding proposal to use Wikipedia for projects that are not Wikipedia. In short: please don't. This is a plain example of brand dilution. The brand has a clear meaning: Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia. The trust and widespread acceptance of the brand comes from this clear association. Wikipedia doesn't stand for the news. Or for the books. Or for pictures. Or for media. Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia, which is valued as a source of knowledge, and is held to standards and format that other Wikimedia projects don't have to follow. A "Wikipedia article" is an encyclopedia article. It's not a news piece, not a book, not a picture, not a data set, not a dictionary definition, nor any of the other things that Wikimedia projects attain. By making Wikipedia an umbrella brand for all of those, you kill the brand, plain and simple. Please value the efforts of all people who made these projects possible, and keep Wikipedia Wikipedia. Sincerely, --------------------------- Another option is using the talk page [1]. If you also think that Wikipedia should only stand for the encyclopedia, make your voice heard by either of the means. [1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedi...

microcolonel 6y ago
Seems like the discussion is marked closed.
- metasj 6y ago
  Ongoing discussion here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedi...
joshuaissac 6y ago
There is also an RfC on the matter with a majority of voting editors opposing the change proposed.[1] Considering that the WMF has allocated $800k for rebranding efforts for this year,[2] and has already signed a contract with Snøhetta,[3][4] all with no consent from the community, I wonder how willing they would be to walk back on their position. 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Requests_... section "Comments" 2. Ibid, image/PDF in the section "Joint strong opposition to the branding process from the Catalan Wikimedia projects & Amical Wikimedia (WMCAT)" 3. https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-skape-en-ny-visuell-profil-for-wikipedia-eier https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/mRd1pp/snoehetta-skal-sk... (in Norwegian) 4. https://brandingwikipedia.org/ https://brandingwikipedia.org/

mmanfrin 6y ago

This is Wikimedia changing to the name that a majority of people know it from, this is not them going from Netflix to Quikster. If I tell my mom to look up something on Wiktionary, I don't tell her it's the same group as Wikimedia, I tell her it's part of Wikipedia, even though the former is correct and the latter is not. In her mind, and in the minds of practically everyone outside of tech, Wikimedia is Wikipedia.

microcolonel 6y ago
> If I tell my mom to look up something on Wiktionary, I don't tell her it's the same group as Wikimedia, I tell her it's part of Wikipedia... Why say either? Not only is it untrue and misleading, but it is entirely pointless, far as I can tell. Does anyone except a certain type of contributor, or staff, care that Wikimedia is an organization? Conversely, is anyone going to pay enough attention to understand the subtleties of "Wikipedia Encyclopedia" where "Wikipedia Dictionary" is somehow not part of an encyclopedia?