Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/Discussion report

Discuss this story

There are hundreds of websites with "Wiki" in their name. Only a few of them are within our movement. How should we clarify which are with us without confusing the wider world? Many of the suggestions here are really good IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikimedia Commons should become Wikicommons. Rorix the White (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This has the disadvantage of not addressing the question @Doc James: has raised. It's just another thing that starts with "Wiki" like Wikipolitica, Wikipotter, Wikitree, or Wikileaks. It still needs adding something to indicate that it's part of the Wikipedia complex, empire, conglomerate, whatever, instead of an independent unaffiliated enterprise. However, we could decide that the question is not important for sites that don't try to face the world; only insiders need know. That would apply to Metawiki and perhaps Wikidata and even Commons. Unless of course the various sites want to appeal directly to the general public as well, instead of being only back offices that outsiders would learn about if they became earnestly curious. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only meant for simplicity's sake, and uniformity. A banner or note at the bottom (or top) of every page may do the job, especially if it is more of a "back office" as you describe it. Until I joined D&D Wiki, I had no idea that Mediawiki or Meta-Wiki existed (both are occasionally referenced over there), and until I joined Wikipedia, I had no idea about Commons or other "background" projects, suggesting that they may not need much more than a note, as only "insiders" normally know about them. Rorix the White (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - But should more than insiders know about Commons? IMO yes. Additionally one can use the term "Wikipedia" in a broader sense than just an "encyclopedia". For example when I tried to recruit partners for "Wikimedia Canada" I would often be corrected "you mean Wikipedia Canada right?". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Doc James: I suggested having a WMF-made primer for press/partners to help them understand things. You might have relevant feedback there for that idea. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Headbomb an excellent suggestion no matter what we do with naming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Doc James: I suggest you comment there too, given the WMF's propensity to sometimes be hard of hearing / not realize what would actually help people 'in the field'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Will point them to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rorix the White: We start with a simple naming question and find ourselves wading into strategic concerns. For years I've been as much a Commonser handling pictures, as a Wikipedian handling words. Over there, some of my colleagues think our service to outside publishers is as important as our role as the picture bureau of Wikipedia. My view of the proper balance has been more the "back office" one, yet I'm pleased that a couple hundred of my photos have been used by local news outlets. I figure, if Commons is to face outward, then distributing press kits to a thousand other organizations is both too big an effort and too little an accomplishment, as the publicity bureau (huh, do we have one?) will surely miss many. Umm, and then we can get into Wikivoyage which might be much more robust if it could take more advantage of the famous brand. The naming question has many tentacles. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see the potential there. That makes sense.Rorix the White (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]