Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Interview

÷

Discuss this story

As everyone knows, the WMF is a cancer. I insist that the WMF be abolished and that they give back our membership in a service organization. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The open letter is calling for more comity and respect in our movement, and I hope we can all take a step together toward that.--Pharos (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to ask Qgil (WMF), or another member of the team, for their viewpoints (they were pretty happy to talk in the office hours). Obviously I disagree with them, vigorously, except that some rebranding is probably necessary, but more viewpoints is beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could do with less editorializing in the questions by The Signpost. The claim "Thus the WMF wants to promote the lesser known projects by using the world famous name" is dubious. More likely is "Thus the WMF wants to increase the effectiveness of fundraising by using the world famous name". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be included as both were stated as targets in discussions with their team, including in the recent office hours calls. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues combined here: (1) the Foundation renaming itself & its affiliates; & (2) choice of name. Speaking for myself, I have no strong objection to (1), beyond the question doesn't the Foundation have more important issues to allocate time, money & resources to? As for (2), one reason I object to the choice that hasn't been mentioned to my knowledge, is that I resent that I've donated considerable time & effort (as well as paying for access to information) to the success of Wikipedia by supplying the content people value it for, & the Foundation now wants to appropriate this success without offering much tangible help in accessing that information. I'm not saying that I want them to be entirely hands-off -- there are many ways they could help the average content contributor -- but that their effective approach to Wikipedia has been "You've done such a wonderful job with this resource. Now we just want to change everything so it conforms to what we think people should have, because we know better than you." -- llywrch (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I wouldn't have said it was one of the most important things for them to do, I could understand the WMF wanting to rebrand themselves to something that avoids confusion with Wikileaks. The problems with rebranding themselves as the Wikipedia foundation is that it downgrades every part of the movement except Wikipedia, and lots of Wikipedians don't want it because it would dilute the Wikipedia brand to include a whole lot of things with different policies to Wikipedia, and to be frank, not all Wikipedians are entirely comfortable with the WMF being the voice of Wikipedia, if it was just a fundraising thing it would still have a lot of opposition, but I fear their intention may be more than that. Oh and the one sensible reason why a WMF rename might be worth doing if the WMF had less on its plate? The Wikipedia foundation is likely to face as much confusion with Wikileaks as the Wikimedia foundation. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible. What were these schmucks thinking? That's the equivalent of trying to rebrand Apple as the iPhone company. There's simply no way this outlandish proposal can pass through community consensus. I do appreciate their good intentions of course, but it's not practical. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I go along with most all previous speakers. Of course that venture of WMF is a bad idea. It will produce grave future distortions. Core community members - the beating heart of the Wikipedia activity - will be alienated. The usurpers of WMF will probably lose the trust and the respect of a lot of people. But the answer to all these disasters to come should not just be to rant and rave at WMF. It really seems probable that they legally can do it. Sad startling discovery that there haven't been no precautionary measures installed to prevent that sort of usurption. It reminds me of those russian managers of the 1990s that turned into billionaires by becoming legal owners of the factories they had just managed before. But rants don't change anything to the better. Are there any effective measures left that could (if not stop the usurpers right away) convince them of the extent of toxic adverse effects they will have to expect? -- Just N. (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]