Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
wikimediafoundation.org
Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#2Wikipedia is well known as an encyclopedia.
Changing that name to encompass a project which is quite different will be detrimental.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#3This seems like a narrowly thought out proposal. Contrary to what Wikimedia may think and see today, Wikipedia is not the future. The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia or autowikipedia, if you get what I'm saying. The name Wikimedia is fine.
I have seen the future, and there is no place for human writers in it.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#4This seems like a narrowly thought out proposal. Contrary to what Wikimedia may think and see today, Wikipedia is not the future. The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia or autowikipedia, if you get what I'm saying. The name Wikimedia is fine. I have seen the future, and there is no place for human writers in it.
> The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia, if you get what I'm saying
Can't disagree with that enough. Wikipedia owes its incredible quality to the human editors doing thankless work behind the scenes. A machine-driven alternative would be awful.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#5This seems like a narrowly thought out proposal. Contrary to what Wikimedia may think and see today, Wikipedia is not the future. The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia or autowikipedia, if you get what I'm saying. The name Wikimedia is fine. I have seen the future, and there is no place for human writers in it.
> The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia, if you get what I'm saying Can't disagree with that enough. Wikipedia owes its incredible quality to the human editors doing thankless work behind the scenes. A machine-driven alternative would be awful.
[deleted]
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#6Wikipedia is well known as an encyclopedia . Changing that name to encompass a project which is quite different will be detrimental.
They are talking about changing the company's name behind Wikipedia to have the same name as the product.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#7This seems like a narrowly thought out proposal. Contrary to what Wikimedia may think and see today, Wikipedia is not the future. The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia or autowikipedia, if you get what I'm saying. The name Wikimedia is fine. I have seen the future, and there is no place for human writers in it.
‘Wiki’ doesn’t mean person - it means quick. An automatic authoring system would be even more ‘wiki’ than before.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#8This seems like a narrowly thought out proposal. Contrary to what Wikimedia may think and see today, Wikipedia is not the future. The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia or autowikipedia, if you get what I'm saying. The name Wikimedia is fine. I have seen the future, and there is no place for human writers in it.
> The future is something closer to robotopedia or machinepedia, if you get what I'm saying Can't disagree with that enough. Wikipedia owes its incredible quality to the human editors doing thankless work behind the scenes. A machine-driven alternative would be awful.
As long as machine writing is below human level quality, yes.
But that won't be the case for too many more years.
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#9The thing that depresses me the most about Wiki[mp]edia is that the US$ 100 that I donated to them a few years ago (presumably,) predominantly went into creating material like this.
Given how incredibly well-funded Wikimedia is, their yearly extort^Wdonation-drive with 50%+ viewport-sized banners plastered all over Wikipedia, claiming that the encyclopedia you're viewing is in dire need of your money to barely sustain itself for the rest of the year, actually makes me rather angry every time I see it.
Recommended reading for those unaware of how (and what) Wikimedia is actually doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
Re: Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030
#10> while shortening “Wikimedia Commons” to its nickname “Wikicommons”
Literally never seen anyone write "Wikicommons", in all the years I've heard people talk about Commons, but heh.
I don't really understand how they manage to (in my opinion) waste time on nonsense like this. The services run great, the contribution volume is immense, and the quality of the tools is improving constantly. I want the Wikimedia Foundation's treasury to keep more funds to deal with conditions which may arise, and seek donations when they expect the most success (rather than the most desperation).
I want the Wikimedia Foundation to make it as attractive and convenient as possible for all interested persons to contribute to, and access, this immense cultural resource, but basically nothing else; and I just don't see how messing about with the names is an efficient way to carry out that job.