The heading "New Wikipedia Visual Design" is misleading. It implies that the design firm has been hired to revise the user interface ("visual design") of Wikipedia. In fact, the firm has been been hired to help with "research on the state of Wikimedia brands." The deliverables are "Brand research and positioning analysis", "Brand strategy documents", and "Brand voice & messaging guidelines".
The leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation appears to have concluded that "Wikimedia" has very low brand recognition, while "Wikipedia" is the opposite. The solution, one gets the sense, is to add "Wikipedia" (somehow) to all the brands of the foundation, including the foundation itself. So, for example, "Wikipedia Foundation", "Wikipedia Wikisource", and "Wikipedia Commons". [And no, none of this has been openly declared; I'm reading between the lines.] -- John Broughton(♫♫)04:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re Beware of malware above, a few days ago I replaced links on allegedly-poisoned web site kodak-worldDOTcom with its archive version and/or the the artist's current official web site on the Russian and other affected Wikipedias' articles for en:Kodak Black, specifically uk, pending change, fr, and ru. I may have missed one, so it would probably be a good idea if someone could scan all articles on all wikis for mention of the allegedly-poisoned site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“Wikimedia" has very low brand recognition, while "Wikipedia" is the opposite. This indeed is my experience. Talking with fellow fans of bicycling, astronomy, photography, trains, whatever, everybody knows what Wikipedia is except the ones who think we are Wikileaks. Only insiders ever heard of Wikimedia. “I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia but somehow it came up as Wikimedia so I stopped. Did some scammer use a similar name trying to cheat me?” When telling newbies how to upload their pictures I get “Eh? I’m trying to put a picture into Wikipedia. Is this Wikimedia Commons the wrong thing?” Think how much confusion arises when I’m not there to explain. So, yes, WMF ought to rename as WPF, and WM Commons ought to rename to WP Commons because outsiders have reason to deal with those entities. Those bits of the WM empire that want to be completely inward facing and unknown to the general public should continue using a name that confuses, mystifies, and repels ignorant curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the media