Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming convention proposals/Survey text: Difference between revisions

@ELappen (WMF):

• "How do you use the Wikimedia name?" is very ambiguous, and I'm not sure how to interpret it. I suspect those working with translations will have an even harder time.
• Specifically asking people to justify their opinions only if they disagree with the Brands team is not something that should be done. (I think at least one project might have a term for this behaviour, but I can't remember what it's called.) It will bias the responses.
• If you don't let people directly express that they don't think a proposal should be used, it's going to generate more conflict, and it's also probably going to mess up the responses to all the other fields. (Tbh, even if it's there but not on the same page (or earlier) as some of the early questions, it's probably going to mess up some of the responses.)
• Please don't require that people reveal the country they live in. Anonymity is a key principle, we go through quite a lot to avoid requiring contributors to reveal that information. Make the field optional, or anyone who keeps that information private simply won't fill out the survey (biasing the responses even more), or will make something up. Please, talk to someone about this.
• "In what language" should not be required if the user's project is a multilingual project like Commons or Wikidata.

--Yair rand (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Yair rand:, Thanks for your attention to this. I've brought the points up for consideration with the survey experts at the Foundation (who have been guiding the Brand Project team).

• Completely agree on the location field being optional. I've edited that question on the page to reflect its optionality, I believe that was an oversight in the copy.
• The question "How do you use the Wikimedia name?" is contextualized with descriptive multiple choice options that should allow respondents to understand and select the options that apply to them. Originally the question was "How do you use the Wikimedia brand?" which felt less accessible to folks than "name". So, while I agree the question as a standalone is ambiguous, the question in context with all the answers should not be. To my knowledge, none of the translators into the 6 preselected languages flagged this as confusing or difficult to translate.
• The question that appears if you select "disagree" or "strongly disagree" invites respondents to elaborate on what they feel should be improved. A big purpose of the survey is to remove and refine things that are not satisfactory, and the question focuses on getting that data. Note that the question is optional, so no one will be made to "justify" anything. With this in mind, I am double checking with the team whether there is a need for specific data on the things respondents really like as well.
• "In what language?" was originally asked as "What language version?" and was set to be triggered only if the respondent selected a project that had language versions, as you've stated. However, in review, the point was raised that what we really care about is what language the volunteer operates in in our ecosystem, meaning that we should structure the question to also capture UI for the projects that are multilingual. For example: a Commons contributor may select Russian if they have their Commons UI in Russian. Hence the phrasing and configuration. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

Hello! Is this the final text? –SJ talk 

Just closing the loop here that the team agrees there is a need for data around what people like as well, so the question referenced above is now asked more broadly and is not triggered by Disagree or Strongly disagree selections. @Sj: This is the text, yes! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

I think it's pretty fair to say that given the number of objections below, this is not the text of a survey that can be presented to the community to gain consensus on anything. @ELappen (WMF): I'll also point out that you missed responding to Yair's third point, which needs to be addressed before this survey goes live, if it does. TomDotGov (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

I tried to contribute translations but I found very few strings which aren't heavily biased or otherwise problematic. A lot of work is needed on the text. To avoid wasting translator time it's advisable to delay the translations until the text is final. Nemo 16:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

This is remarkably biased language in the survey introduction: Since 2003, we have used the term "Wikimedia" to refer to this movement. However, after 15 years, the name "Wikimedia" remains unknown and confusing to the outside world. This makes it an ineffective tool for explaining who we are, demonstrating the impact of our work, and inviting new people in. By contrast, Wikipedia is globally-recognized, but it is not widely understood as part of a larger ecosystem of projects and communities. [emphasis added]--Pharos (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

The whole Branding Project, a small group within the WMF that heavily promotes rebranding, even against the communities wishes, is based on this apodictic assumption, that must not be questioned, at least in the POV of the heavily invested (WMF)ers. They fight tooth and nail any NPOV versions of the rebranding question. This is just the next step in this completely biased enterprise by this small group of MoaM. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(Reden) 10:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

I agree with Pharos. The language used is biased and suggestive. We cannot run a survey where voters are being induced to vote for an option. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

Note that the actual discussion for the banner launchng the survey is at CentralNotice/Request/Movement Brand naming proposals.--Pharos (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

The options provided, on which to express opinions, are mostly irrelevant. For instance, there's no "The proposal will help advance our mission". In addition to the agree-disagree scale, there should be an option to disagree with the importance of the criterion. Nemo 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

Which affiliate are you representing? [open question] (required)

How many people are sharing thoughts in this response? [provide a range] (required) -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 09:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Reply