Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030

Post by gowld » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC

hug wrote: post #77

sago wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a thoroughly unpleasant attitude. > which consists of this bunch of mediocrity: Wiktionary I use Wiktionary very regularly, and find it incredibly useful. Presumably you don't use all of Wikipedia either, what makes you 'give a shit' about the other 99.9+% of content?

You may find my attitude unpleasant: What I find unpleasant is a large organisation deliberately deceiving users into thinking that the resource they consider valuable is underfunded, when really they are spending those donations on side shows that these people don't even know exist, let alone want to use. WMF are like the Internet charity version of Susan G Komen. With regards to the usefulness of Wikipedia versus W…

Post by a-nikolaev » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 4:31 AM UTC

a-nikolaev wrote: post #81

hug wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may find my attitude unpleasant: What I find unpleasant is a large organisation deliberately deceiving users into thinking that the resource they consider valuable is underfunded, when really they are spending those donations on side shows that these people don't even know exist, let alone want to use. WMF are like the Internet charity version of Susan G Komen. With regards to the usefulness of Wikipedia versus W…

Yes, totally agreed. Wikimedia is over funded, yet they beg for donations all the time, and then go spending our money on tens of side projects that have no clear direction, purpose, or goal. Edit: That branding research is another avenue for wasting our donation money.

Post by profalseidol » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:00 AM UTC

atdt wrote: post #67

I spent over four years as an engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation, which trained me to expect the double-take most people do when they hear the name for the first time. They either think they misheard you, or worse: they think you represent a knock-off entity that is trading on a misleading brand similarity, and they squint at you with suspicion. It's as if you told them you work at "AmaZone". So you can immediately…

Post by titanix2 » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:26 AM UTC

dependsontheq wrote: post #59

This is a very nice brand research project, based on this they obviously had problems. “Wikimedia is a Social Media Video site” is a quote from the research. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Global_W...

Post by mprev » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 7:40 AM UTC

uranusjr wrote: post #92

atdt wrote: post #67

I spent over four years as an engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation, which trained me to expect the double-take most people do when they hear the name for the first time. They either think they misheard you, or worse: they think you represent a knock-off entity that is trading on a misleading brand similarity, and they squint at you with suspicion. It's as if you told them you work at "AmaZone". So you can immediately…

I have a friend working at Canonical, and whenever he introduces himself he always includes a brief mention that Canonical makes Ubuntu. I felt it’s very strange (and certainly felt it a little offensive when I first knew him), but came to understand it after a while. It is not common for people to make connection between Canonical and Ubuntu (even IT people!). He needs to establish himself, otherwise many people won…