imedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Dato: Lør, 11. dec 2010 10:42
> Emne: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia
>
> In fact the proposers of renaming or merging want to kill the
> sisterprojects, see e.g. the proposal linked above. I don't think
> this
> proposal is worth
2010/12/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>> Say the projects were all renamed. Great. What's changed? Only the name
>> on each page and likely the logo in the upper left. Will the smaller
>> projects magically get more readers and editors and Google page rank? No.
>
> In fact the proposers of renamin
Aaron Adrignola, 11/12/2010 05:01:
> The following is an important point by Fajro:
>
>> Google has links to their other sites in the top of every poge:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249799850/in/set-72157625445178785/
>> Wikipedia "sister proyects" are also relegated to the bottom of the
The following is an important point by Fajro:
>
> Google has links to their other sites in the top of every poge:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249799850/in/set-72157625445178785/
> Wikipedia "sister proyects" are also relegated to the bottom of the page.
>
>
The idea of a navigation bar t
rom: "wjhon...@aol.com"
> > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 10:35:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia
> >
> > In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > zvand...@googlemail.com writ
- Original Message
> From: "wjhon...@aol.com"
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 10:35:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia
>
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>
Nonsense.
Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted properly.
In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in every page!!
No wonder why people don't know what Wikimedia is!
See the login page of Wikipedia: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249248
I'm aware of that discussion, but thanks for pointing to it. I do not,
however, feel that it has been "discussed at length" since most of the
discussion centers about a proposal to merge all projects into Wikipedia.
That is rightly opposed as being harmful to the projects and also seems
not to be d
Absolutely worth re-reading this message from 2007 on brand unification:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
(thanks Nemo)
Ziko
2010/12/10 :
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
>> It is difficu
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
> It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia
> because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you
> can't donate to a website itself but only to the instit
Strainu, 10/12/2010 17:31:
> At first thought, this proposal seemed like a "branding suicide", but
> considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and
> the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing.
It's been discussed at length:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wik
I also think that it is worth considering and that it's not a suicide,
although other opinions are welcome.
I am mostly active in Wikipedia, but i am also quite active in
Wikisource and Commons. I wouldn't be offended if Wikisource's name
would change. When i talk about my biggest Wikisource proje
At first thought, this proposal seemed like a "branding suicide", but
considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and
the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing. It would
also help avoid composed word that sometimes sound strange or are just
plain weird in langu
I was about to write a suggestion similar to the one indicated by Ziko
van Dijk. I second it and recommend that the following be given serious
consideration:
Change as soon as practically possible the naming of the Foundation to
the "Wikipedia Foundation" and the naming of the projects to Wikipedi
Dear friends,
There should be nobody offended, and no apoligize is necessary. We try
to deal with a complicated situation that would not exist if Wikipedia
would be simply the product of Wikipedia Publishing House.
Whether the names amplify the problem, whether "Wikimedia" was a good
name choice
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia,
> not to Wikimedia", it spells
> out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the
> institution of Wikipedia than the
> institution of Wikimed
On 10 December 2010 12:33, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say
>> Wikimedia.
>
> That's progress, but it is still wrong. Sue is not the ED of
> Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am part of
> Wikimedia, but Sue is defi
On 10 December 2010 00:20, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Hi everyone -
>
> First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
> Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage
> to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> Hi everyone -
>
> First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
> Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage
> to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarif
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. It seems some people assumed bad faith
> before, when really we can see it was just a good-natured attempt to
> deceive these people as to where their money would go.
Maybe you're trying to be funny, but could you
Thanks Zack and Phillippe, I think you guys made the right call. This
is exactly how Foundation action and community feedback should work. I
think we all appreciate your quick response to our concerns. I
disagree with any implication that your decision was in some way
immoral; your perspectives are
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
>
> When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia,
> not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract
> more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of
> Wiki
On 09/12/2010 21:20, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> [...]thinking that we could manage to raise the yield slightly by
> deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for people that
> the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia.
You are saying that it was intentional.
> Whe
Ah, see, straight dealing like this is what it takes to get me to donate :)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> Hi everyone -
>
> First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
___
foundation-l mailing
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say
> Wikimedia.
Thank you. :-)
I think you and the fundraising team this year have done a much, much better
job engaging and including the community than any past Wikimedia fundraiser.
This definitely
Hi everyone -
First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners. Michael
Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage to raise
the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for
people that the Wikimedia Foundation was dire
26 matches
Mail list logo
