Requests for Comment/Miraheze's name and branding
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- While we thank the community for the spirited debate and helpful input both here and on the similarly-focused RfF, this RfC is on a matter in board purview and as such is only advisory in nature. While no specific action will be taken as result, RfC and RfF preference against rebrand as originally presented is acknowledged and those efforts have been postponed indefinitely. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This Request for Comments is now closed. Please do not edit this page. New edits may be reverted. |
Recently, the board, after detailing their reasoning in a request for feedback on the community portal and then receiving opposition by several active Meta users and limited support, announced at MWCon that they would be renaming Miraheze to WikiTide. Regardless of your view on the new name, the more fundamental issue is that this was done without community consensus. I am opening an RfC to obtain community consensus, because the small amount of discussion that has occurred so far has been limited and yet still mostly in opposition. Unfortunately, BrandonWM stated on Discord "As explained to me, the Board will not be taking the RfC into consideration in any form", so this RfC only really serves to demonstrate that the community is being ignored and to obtain community input because this is a "matter[] pertaining to the Miraheze community" as stated on the Requests for Comment Policy for what is in scope for an RfC. It has been claimed that the Board will consider the request for feedback on the community portal instead of this RfC, but that is deceptive because Labster explicitly stated on Discord that for some unexplained reason, the arguments against on the CN were not "strong" and are therefore going to be ignored. This is very undesirable behavior from the board, and as elections are currently open for new board members, this "matter[] pertaining to the Miraheze community" is very important to have settled so that the current board candidates can state whether they stand with the community on this.
This introduction does not intend to sway anyone in the position of supporting or opposing the rename - that can be done in the proposals below. Instead, I am demonstrating why a rename without consensus is wrong so that you can have the sufficient background information to decide whether you're going to support or oppose a rename, and why you're being asked for your opinion.
- The Fundraiser has claimed, when soliciting monetary donations, that decisions are made according to community consensus. Sidestepping community consensus on something that will effect the identity and branding of the platform makes the fundraiser deceptive, with Miraheze users and visitors having donated under false pretenses. This could be argued to be deceptive advertising, and as the WikiTide Foundation (the nonprofit organization that manages the Miraheze wikifarm) is is a nonprofit that supports free knowledge, it is very undesirable to already be going against the community less than a year after the incorporation of the US-based nonprofit.
- To quote Owen on Discord: "It was given as a reassurance on numerous occasions no rename would occur without an RfC, im curious to understand why a board which slated Miraheze Limited for 'not being community driven' has not only excluded the community from this major decision it assured it wouldn't, but then actively ignored the community's view? Seems very anti community centric."
- As I stated on Discord: "A middle ground rebrand would not solve the problem if the middle ground rebrand was not supported by the community. If the community supported renaming to WikiTide, I would not have any issue with it. Nor would I have an issue with MiraTide, if that was supported by the community. The problem is that the Board ignored the community."
- To quote Raidarr on Discord: "the manner of the rebranding will be more consequential in the long run than the act of rebranding"
It should go without saying, but I would like to remind everyone here to assume good faith of the Board. I highly doubt the change was made with malicious intentions, but is still a very important matter to decide upon. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Keep the current name[edit | edit source]
For the reasons explained in my support. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Support[edit | edit source]
- Support So I'm really not sure why a rename is needed. The claims of reputational damage to Miraheze are greatly exaggerated, and renaming a company to avoid PR issues is the kind of shady practice that I'd expect to hear a company like the NSO Group doing, not a non-profit that supports free access to knowledge. Miraheze is not very well known, but those who do know it know it as Miraheze. Renaming it to WikiTide will not help with word of mouth marketing or really anything else. Domain names do not have a large impact on SEO, so that claim is also illogical ("Your site’s domain name is not a direct ranking factor itself. But it can still impact your site’s traffic and conversions." - Semrush). I do acknowledge the importance of SEO and perhaps the Board could look into some kind of SEO initiatives. The WMF vs John issue doesn't really make sense. I don't understand why that is related to Miraheze or why a rename to WikiTide will resolve it. John quit Miraheze a year ago and made an angry announcement that he'd report the company or something, he has no connection to Miraheze now and renaming Miraheze to WikiTide won't solve the issue. The pronounciation issue is also minor. Miraheze doesn't need to have an official pronounciation. People can call it ミラヘゼ (this is katakana: ミ is mi, ヘ is he, ラ is a ⟨ɺ⟩ sound that does not exist in the English language but is similar to "ra", and ゼ is ze), mee-rah-heez, mir-ih-heeze, etc., it doesn't really matter, people still know what you're talking about. The name being two random stars is also irrelevant. Google, for example, is one of the largest and most successful businesses, and their name is not even a real word. Discord's name is also not in any way related to the services it provides, Fandom's name is only tangentially related, nearly every game company has a name that was simply invented (HoYoverse, miHoYo, Bungie, Mojang, etc.), and so on. It has been claimed that volunteers only refuse to participate in Miraheze because of its name, and they'd be willing to participate if it was named differently, but CA said on Discord that this has only been the case with "a few" people, and Miraheze is still receiving new volunteers frequently, so a rename to just attract a few more people isn't necessary. Furthermore, as Tali stated on Discord: "The Miraheze brand hindering the wiki farm would only be true if Miraheze was a name that could never shed its negative reputation, which is not true; we've received a lot of positive attention in the past few months as Miraheze" and to quote OriginalAuthority: "Just an fyi that rebranding does not do much to improve a farms reputation. People are still sour at wikia and Fandom hasn't been wikia for years." and as Felenov stated on Discord: "I am going to present you two wiki farms: Wiki farm A and Wiki farm B. (from now on Alpha and Bravo)
Alpha has been around for a while, Bravo has been founded by members of Alpha when they split off, but you do not know that. I am just going to tell you Alpha has more wikis and more infrastructure and been around longer.
If you were migrating from another farm (let's say Foxtrot) which one would you pick knowing your shit experience with Foxtrot: Alpha or Bravo." and "Miraheze has been around for a while now. If you rename, you essentially throw out all the reputation you have built up with the old name - not ideal" コレイ (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC) - Support I've explained multiple times why a rebrand is unnecessary. TL;DR: it won't solve any issues and in fact might be harmful for community growth. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support The name changes are unneeded and are not even going to matter much and should be the same without any change. The re-branding is one of the most unneeded actions this miraheze system is doing just fine and rebranding when there has not been Wiki's like the user reception which was already taken care of long time ago and miraheze has been able to rebuilt from that like more wiki control as I seen farmer log and ones who manage that log know what they are doing as they are doing wiki checks to see if they should make that wiki which no only is a good system it also prevents pointless and filler ones by saying no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 339Breakingoof (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 April 2024
- Strong support per above, it won't really help anything Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support I already stated - Miraheze has been around for a long time and has a reputation associated with the name, domain, logo, etc. To me this looks like a solution looking for a problem with a net negative outcome in the end. / Felenov / T / C / 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- More pointless churn and fixing of things that aren't broken. Pppery (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support Other people said it all better than I did over Discord, so yeah. Also I got really attached to Xena's mirabees and wish them to be real 🥺 Legroom (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support for now. I am not against rebranding, but now is not the time. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support still holds up EmicraftNoob (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support due to the lack (and substance) of arguments in favor of a rename. --Zeus, aka Blad (t • c • g) 16:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support While I see the benefits of rebranding, I have some concerns with it. The main one is confusion the rebranding will inevitably introduce, and yes it may be short-term, but after years of Miraheze it can take a long time for WikiTide to "settle in" properly (be it among the existing community or even new people looking for alternatives to Fandom through older sources, the latter being more long-term I imagine). Second is the name and logo. I completely get the wider appeal, but my concern is that it will end up being too sterile and generic to stand out amongst other wiki farms. The current logo is warm and appealing, and simple in addition which makes it easy to remember and recognise. I feel that keeping the current branding is a viable option. As a side note, I am really fond of the current branding and neutral at best to the new one, but tried to keep the presonal bias aside here as it can change over time. That's why this is only a weak support. 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Seeing that even though it is an English word, every week Spanish-speaking visitors arrive to create and edit Wikis. The name change would not change much in how it sounds. If you are going to make a change, you have to think about the non-English speaking community. Don't make the mistake of the Original Wiki. --Hispano76 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support No need to change. クールトレイン777 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Abstain[edit | edit source]
- Neutral I've been undecided on this for awhile. On one hand, I do vastly prefer the name WikiTide over Miraheze. But on the other, renames are difficult and will simply cause additional confusion to the users who are still confused about the merger. So, in the end, I am honestly not sure. But something I am sure on, however, is that the Board should not have gone through with the rename announced at MWCon after the mixed, leaning negative feedback they received. A complete rebrand should attain at least 60% support in my mind, while this proposal likely got around a 40-50% approval rating. If you're going to consult the community, listen to their opinions. Signed, Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 02:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I am kinda unsure about this. While I see the issues of renaming, I know Miraheze name is a target of memes and jokes for the difficulty of reading. Also, I find it very unfortunate to have the initial announcement on MWCon. While it is true the chairman of this year's conference was Harej, it doesn't mean it is a "Miraheze" conference. --TreeIsLife (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose[edit | edit source]
- Oppose As explained in my support for the rebrand to WikiTide. I cannot be said to be completely opposed to preserving the current name but since this is a vote I believe it is necessary to oppose this in this manner in order to highlight my support for the alternative. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose as the Miraheze name and brand reputation is irreparably tarnished, both in terms of potential software development collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation and in terms of the reputational harm that certain types of wikis (i.e., negative Reception wikis about real, living people) brought about. I'd be open to names other than WikiTide, but keeping the Miraheze name is a big mistake. Additionally, as it is related to branding, marketing, and corporate image, this must be on an advisory basis, as it is the exclusive domain of the Board together with their SRE partners. Doug (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Board has already indefinitely suspended any plans for rebranding; see this community portal post. I'd recommend this RfC be closed as it's no longer necessary. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- comment: You can take the name out of the organisation, the organisation is still the same! I do not believe that the reputation is irreparably tarnished [sic]. WikiTide will however forever be linked to Miraheze. If you want to rebrand, make sure that the reputation is cleaned. It may be a longer road to travel on, but WikiTide would benefit from the improvements that are made. When the organisation and its volunteers are working in unison, and all noses are pointed towards the same goals, rebranding would be more likely to succeed. Yes, it is an advice that is given, and the board could continue with the rebranding. But it would damage WikiTide Foundation more, as the trust between the community and it's board would forever be damaged. Every new decision that will be made by the board would be looked at with distrust. That is not what anyone wants. We need to win each others trust again, before we make such a big change. It's up to the board to make the community see it the same way. Then it would be a lot easier to get things done. But that is my personal opinion. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 21:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Board has already indefinitely suspended any plans for rebranding; see this community portal post. I'd recommend this RfC be closed as it's no longer necessary. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments[edit | edit source]
There was a lively debate on Discord yesterday. A few points that need to be considered:
Yes, we agreed to move forward a couple weeks ago. The RfF was mainly for my benefit; I wanted to see if there were arguments that would cause me to reconsider my stance. I'm pretty easily the most on the fence of people on the board, having been on Miraheze for nearly a decade without trying to rename it. It really wasn't looking for votes or community agreement (though we'd like agreement obviously). It's looking for strong arguments that what we were doing was a bad idea, or a good idea. Simply expressing an opinion is not really an argument. Ro and Robkelk gave very good feedback, both bringing up things that I hadn't considered.
Community consensus is important, but it's more important for us to plan to grow for the future. I've asked a lot of people at the conference here before the talk what they thought about the rename. And it was pretty unanimously in favor of renaming from people outside the project. And those are people that we want to reach -- future members of the community, who aren't here yet. Those that aren't here because of impediments to our outreach.
It doesn't matter at all if Miraheze has a bad reputation. The name itself still gets in the way of getting people interested in the project. It's happened to me too many times in person for it to be random. I have to hear the evidence of my own ears.
— Labster on Discord
- There were no board members present to address their point of view.
In stead BrandonMW was appointed to be the spokes person.As such, nothing was added to the above point of view. As BrandonWM is not on the board, just a simple sysop who does his job, all he could do was stating what was said to him. The notion of opening a RfC was quickly been shot down - "The RfC process is non-enforceable in this situation and will not have a different effect" just minutes before he had stated: "RfF = non-enforceable decision, RfC = enforceable decision."
To suppress an RfC on the matter would be a direct attack on the communities ability to demonstrate democracy - something WikiTide Foundation explicitly said would not happen.
— Owen
The issue I have is how the board saw it fit to just push the name change through without wanting to ask the community what they would think about that. Without the RfF, the community would have to find out through an announcement that the name was to be changed into WikiTide. The name chance was already decided weeks ago, even though the Merger Faq stated: Will the Miraheze name/miraheze.org URL remain?
Yes, for the foreseeable future. Should there be any changes to the default URL for wikis, we will communicate them with anticipation and will automatically redirect wikis to their new URL, indefinitely.
Please note that "Foreseeable future" is stretchable. But it puts the community on the wrong false security that the name would not change.
So even though the community stated that they were against this, and came with good arguments why it was a bad idea (as stated by Labster above), the Board ignored the community. Labsters RfF was his own initiative (iirc) and gives the feeling of "We're going to do this, unless we get convinced by a very good argument why we shouldn't."
This goes directly against our core of community governance.
— Owen
So before the RfF was even opened, a decision was already made, one that the community is very much against? This is problematic on so many levels; when the Board starts to make decisions despite the community's opposition, "you have a voice in all policy matters" becomes a meaningless statement. If this trend continues, before you know it freedom of speech will be nonexistent and [WikiTide] will be a money-hungry for-profit. That is not something we should go towards; this decision (or any decision, for that matter) should not have been made without community input. Going forward, any decision made by the Board that does not regard legal matters should require an RfC, full stop.
— Tali64³
It was given as a reassurance on numerous occasions no rename would occur without an RfC, im curious to understand why a board which slated Miraheze Limited for "not being community driven" has not only excluded the community from this major decision it assured it wouldn't, but then actively ignored the community's view? Seems very anti community centric.
— Owen
It is clear that the whole renaming procedure has been done under false pretences. Wasn't it for Labsters comments above, we (the community) would have to find out, without even able to voice opinion, that Miraheze was dumped in the bin. For what? Because some highly needed volunteers with special skills, likely from WikiMedia realm, don't want to be associated with "Miraheze's Legacy". So to please them, you set a whole community aside, and go against the community wishes to please a few people who might, or might not want to come over to Miraheze/WikiTide.
- Adding the comments from Community_portal#Request_for_Feedback_-_Rename_Miraheze_to_WikiTide Request for Feedback - Rename Miraheze to WikiTide for reference.
- @Board Members I employ to you the following.
- The way you have handled this has the community heated, mostly as they feel deceived. It would suite the board if they said: Okay, this is not how we should have done this. Let's wait for a year and return to this question again.
- For you, to be trusted, you need to listen to the community who selected you. What you have done here broke the trust of the community.
- That's the biggest stain on WikiTide, before it even is implemented!
Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 07:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to collect and document all of this. I absolutely agree. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 10:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just for information, at no point has @User:BrandonWM been authorized to speak on behalf of the Board of Directors. As this is a serious violation of the Global Conduct Policy, representing an official stance without authorization, Brandon is being demoted from Discord roles, so that people do not get the wrong idea about what we have and have not discussed as a board. Unfortunately, the rest of the board is not ready to enforce the GCP at this time, so it does not apply to wiki roles --Labster (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- This arbitrary demotion when Brandon clearly stated he was only repeating what he had been told is very disturbing behavior and does not inspire trust in Miraheze when trust is already at an all time low. Someone with global rights who serves on the Board should know that it goes against countless Miraheze policies and principles to demote someone from all roles on Discord because they said something you disagree with. Brandon never claimed to be appointed as a spokesperson; Rodejong simply misinterpreted Brandon's very clear statement, likely because of the language barrier as Rodejong isn't a native speaker. Truthfully this is very concerning behavior that should not occur on this wikifarm. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Clarifying, have corrected Lab's typo (Content to Conduct so it's not a redlink). The actions taken have been undone and a community vote is open, for those that are not on Discord. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 04:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 2: Rename to WikiTide[edit | edit source]
I do not believe I can explain an idea that I disagree with in an unbiased manner, so I would encourage reading Labster's explanation for why the Board wants to rename. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Support[edit | edit source]
- Support I do not believe it is necessary to extensively repeat my previous remarks about procedural issues that I have made on the Community Portal thread. Regarding this Request for Comments it is unclear to me why it was believed to be necessary to create a RfC when there was already a Request for Feedback opened on this matter. The rebrand is not a "global policy" so the RfC on this matter would have the same effect as the discussion on Community Portal. I do not believe it is reasonable to expect users to comment twice only because there is a perception that by having an RfC and a formal vote it will make the situation more "official". In any case leaving the procedure aside I am supportive of the rebrand. I am not persuaded by the arguments that make the suggestion that actions speak louder than words because I believe that changes have already been made by the WikiTide Foundation and what is now necessary is the "words" - the rebrand - to make those changes clear. As I had mentioned previously there have been many company rebrands and it is evident that rebrands have positive results even though some of them are indeed negative. Reading the arguments here it is difficult to see the people making them support a rebrand in any circumstance for any company. I believe that with a rebrand it is still possible to get the "best of both worlds". The people looking or searching for the name Miraheze will still be redirected to WikiTide and participate in the project. The people who currently have negative associations with Miraheze will be more likely to soften those associations if there is a new name. A rebrand is the expression of change and a willingness to change and without that due to its unfortunate and complicated history Miraheze will always be seen as the project that has constant drama and problems such as the reception wikis to cite one. For a short point on the issue with John I would say that I respect John and I am very grateful for the work that he has done here as SRE and without him this project would clearly not exist. The reality however is that he has left us and from his own resignation does not expect to come back. It is understandable why few people at the Wikimedia Foundation would want to engage or to be seen engaging with a project so deeply associated with someone who allegedly violated their Terms of Service. I am not sure if there have in fact been Wikimedia Foundation affiliated users who wished to engage with Miraheze and have not done so as is suggested here but it is clear that doing so will not be easy and it would be difficult for them to explain to their colleagues and entourage. By changing the name it would make this association more distant and more likely that persons at the Wikimedia would wish to engage with us if they did so in the first place. No one will forget the work John has done for Miraheze or the fact that he was founder by doing this. Miraheze is a different project than it was years ago and it arguably has different aspirations or goals. In order to make this more clear and to have a fresh start I believe a rebrand is the right choice. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The RfC was seen as necessary on a few accounts. For one the RfF was a somewhat obscure thing posted on the Community Portal (which should not be obscure but is an unprecedented minimizing of a platform-wide discussion imo), for two the RfF was structured in a way that was unprecedentedly dismissive and callous regarding community input on the subject, atop mention being very narrow, muddled in its formatting and engagement, and posted in a way that did not indicate there was a big talk where Labster was going to say whatever he wanted regardless of the 'feel of the room' in that discussion. In that talk the community run nature of the platform was raised multiple times. That the talk was made with a decision hastily pushed out and implemented in an 'ah we'll just take the fallout' manner is why this rfc firstly was created, to properly gather the input which imo was bungled by the RfF in the first place. The surrounding issue with the communication, decision making etc will be another discussion entirely I am sure. I can certainly agree that Miraheze has different aspirations/goals, and through this decision has opened the door to another model of governance even if I have been assured this was a one-time deal. This door was too big either way to have been handled in the way it was. Imo an RfC was always the correct way to gather input; I don't like the gnarly nature of a large RfC at all, but neither do I like the cramped nature of some post on the CN and I'd really rather that stop being used in place for decisions which have gravity. The RfC process is more flexible than it's been given credit for. It is not only for policy. It is a mechanism to gather community input, the only dedicated venue for larger decisions of its nature; the CN is not adequate. Or if the board just wanted to make a decision and input was secondary or immaterial, that should have been more apparent upfront. Hopefully the technical volunteer gain projected by the change will outdo the disenfranchisement of this affair's handling. In time I expect it will go away as the actual meta aware community that cares about this is relatively small, especially compared to the true scale of the global community and that community so far as I can tell is unbothered either way. Either way the damage will be the handling, not the decision. --raidarr (💬) 09:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. The handling was wrong! The Timing was off as well. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 09:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was not my intention to laud the procedural aspects of the rebrand. I merely did not wish to repeat the points which I had made previously in the RfF and this is the reason for going straight to the substantive points. As I mentioned previously I am in agreement that the procedure by which this was handled was not appropriate at all and I do not think anyone - not even the Board - holds the belief that procedurally this was done right. This being said what is done cannot fully be undone and therefore the focus should be on what to do next. At the end Raidarr mentions the "true scale of the global community". Democracy and community are convoluted ideas at Miraheze and I have always been supportive of the community's right to decide in which direction the platform goes. During my years at Miraheze I have observed unfortunately what Raidarr alludes to is true and the wider global community is in fact very underrepresented at the Meta level. The Meta level where decisions are taken attracts a small number of votes other than in certain circumstances where RfCs are widely advertised on the platform. Otherwise they are primarily by users who appear to be interested in policy making, drafting and debating such as myself. That is not a problem in itself and it is evident that most persons who use this platform are interested in the advancement of their own wikis and interests and if certain issues do not concern them directly it is not a surprise that they do not wish to participate. This comes back to the ideas of representative and direct democracy which were discussed a few years ago. Direct democracy is a positive tool to have at ones disposal but I do not believe that it is possible to operate on a full direct democracy aspect without any representative aspects. This is why Stewards are given discretion in a lot of manners. In this particular case it should be recalled that the community has the opportunity to elect three community directors on the Board in the ongoing election. It is unfortunate that a fourth director was not available but it remains true that the community has the direct possibility to elect their representatives at this higher level and these directors would have a 1/2 majority over the appointed directors.
- Leaving these aspects aside it must still be decided what can be done at this stage. I do not believe that waiting a year will change anything significant. It is quite a shame that the rebrand was announced at a conference as this does make the possibility to "roll back" this change more difficult as Miraheze/WikiTide would not appear to be a serious organization to the wider wiki audience. I believe there are two clear options that emerge. The first option is that the community is deemed to have the final word and despite the limited participation in the RfC the rebrand is not pursued due to a lack of community agreement in this sense. The consequences of this are that it will be difficult to ever propose the rebrand again and the organization would not look serious in the eyes of the public in its decision-mkaing. The second option is for the Board to reach the conclusion that this decision is one of an exceptional nature and that unless there is strong opposition from the "true global community" expressed it wishes to nonetheless go ahead with this rebrand in order to maintain and improve its image at the expense of the disenfranchisement effect mentioned by Raidarr. I am unable to make a pronouncement on which of the options are preferable. A wider discussion of the role of the community and the unrepresentative aspect of the current system as well as what expectations are to be had of the Board is needed to avoid issues like this in the future. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was not my intention to laud the procedural aspects of the rebrand. I merely did not wish to repeat the points which I had made previously in the RfF and this is the reason for going straight to the substantive points. As I mentioned previously I am in agreement that the procedure by which this was handled was not appropriate at all and I do not think anyone - not even the Board - holds the belief that procedurally this was done right. This being said what is done cannot fully be undone and therefore the focus should be on what to do next. At the end Raidarr mentions the "true scale of the global community". Democracy and community are convoluted ideas at Miraheze and I have always been supportive of the community's right to decide in which direction the platform goes. During my years at Miraheze I have observed unfortunately what Raidarr alludes to is true and the wider global community is in fact very underrepresented at the Meta level. The Meta level where decisions are taken attracts a small number of votes other than in certain circumstances where RfCs are widely advertised on the platform. Otherwise they are primarily by users who appear to be interested in policy making, drafting and debating such as myself. That is not a problem in itself and it is evident that most persons who use this platform are interested in the advancement of their own wikis and interests and if certain issues do not concern them directly it is not a surprise that they do not wish to participate. This comes back to the ideas of representative and direct democracy which were discussed a few years ago. Direct democracy is a positive tool to have at ones disposal but I do not believe that it is possible to operate on a full direct democracy aspect without any representative aspects. This is why Stewards are given discretion in a lot of manners. In this particular case it should be recalled that the community has the opportunity to elect three community directors on the Board in the ongoing election. It is unfortunate that a fourth director was not available but it remains true that the community has the direct possibility to elect their representatives at this higher level and these directors would have a 1/2 majority over the appointed directors.
- I second this. The handling was wrong! The Timing was off as well. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 09:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Miraheze will always be seen as the project that has constant drama and problems such as the reception wikis to cite one
seems weirdly contradictory withThe people looking or searching for the name Miraheze will still be redirected to WikiTide and participate in the project
. It's not a new project, and the name Miraheze would always be tied to WikiTide, rebrand or not. I'd doubt thatThe people who currently have negative associations with Miraheze will be more likely to soften those associations if there is a new name
has any sort of substance beneath it, case in point, Twitter. --Zeus, aka Blad (t • c • g) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The RfC was seen as necessary on a few accounts. For one the RfF was a somewhat obscure thing posted on the Community Portal (which should not be obscure but is an unprecedented minimizing of a platform-wide discussion imo), for two the RfF was structured in a way that was unprecedentedly dismissive and callous regarding community input on the subject, atop mention being very narrow, muddled in its formatting and engagement, and posted in a way that did not indicate there was a big talk where Labster was going to say whatever he wanted regardless of the 'feel of the room' in that discussion. In that talk the community run nature of the platform was raised multiple times. That the talk was made with a decision hastily pushed out and implemented in an 'ah we'll just take the fallout' manner is why this rfc firstly was created, to properly gather the input which imo was bungled by the RfF in the first place. The surrounding issue with the communication, decision making etc will be another discussion entirely I am sure. I can certainly agree that Miraheze has different aspirations/goals, and through this decision has opened the door to another model of governance even if I have been assured this was a one-time deal. This door was too big either way to have been handled in the way it was. Imo an RfC was always the correct way to gather input; I don't like the gnarly nature of a large RfC at all, but neither do I like the cramped nature of some post on the CN and I'd really rather that stop being used in place for decisions which have gravity. The RfC process is more flexible than it's been given credit for. It is not only for policy. It is a mechanism to gather community input, the only dedicated venue for larger decisions of its nature; the CN is not adequate. Or if the board just wanted to make a decision and input was secondary or immaterial, that should have been more apparent upfront. Hopefully the technical volunteer gain projected by the change will outdo the disenfranchisement of this affair's handling. In time I expect it will go away as the actual meta aware community that cares about this is relatively small, especially compared to the true scale of the global community and that community so far as I can tell is unbothered either way. Either way the damage will be the handling, not the decision. --raidarr (💬) 09:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support if the logo and name are given another thought (there's no proposal for "other name", so adding my vote here). My concerns are already stated in the weak support to proposal 1, in short: the branding leaning too heavily into the appeal and in effect being too generic. I understand the reasons behind the rebrand, mostly the broader appeal and the lack of it in the current name, but it can be done without the new branding feelling too corporate.
- - If WikiTide's name stays, the logo should be redesigned to help the new branding stand out. Personally, the current wave shape looks awkward (if not for blue color and name it would look like a hair tuft or a plant sprout to me) especially on white backgrounds, where the bottom part of the logo shape is lost. Some changes would have to be done to make it more recognisable and clear. And the rebrand time is the best time, otherwise the community will get used to this logo, and changing it will become harder with time.
- - If the name is reconsidered to be something else (be it MiraWiki, WikiHive or something else), the existing logo could be used or redesigned. This would eliminate some confusion caused by the rebrand, as the logo would tie it together. Plus honestly, it's a very nice logo.
- I'm aware that personally status quo bias is taking place and that's most likely happening in the community as well. Many of us are attached to the beehive aesthetic and the quirky name ^^ And the new branding doesn't have to go the opposite way and be so sterile. Wiki.gg has the "GG", we can have something as well that makes the new name/logo have some personality. The rebrand looks promising when looking at the long-term. But, for the same reasons, the new branding cannot be taken lightly and has to be reconsidered to avoid this repeating in the future with an even "shinier" name and logo. 17:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest support per my argument in Proposal 1. Procedurally, as this relates to corporate image, branding, and marketing, this must be on an advisory-only vote basis, as it is within the Board's jurisdiction. Doug (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Abstain[edit | edit source]
- Abstain I'm sadly not surprised this didn't unfold gracefully, I had suspicions. But if it's inevitable at least make a better logo, please (someone on Discord also pointed out the look of it can inwoke not very clean associations lol). Legroom (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Refer to my comments in the section above. --Zeus, aka Blad (t • c • g) 16:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose[edit | edit source]
- Oppose per my support in proposal 1. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I supported the previous proposal Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for now. I am not against rebranding, but now is not the time. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 07:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reason: It is hard for the board to acquire skilled volunteers, as (What labster says) they do not want to be associated with "Miraheze". For those few people, the community is set aside, to please these skilled volunteers. → The problem is... They might not even join anyway, as WikiTide = Miraheze. → You can take the name out of the organisation, the organisation is still the same! Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 09:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - supported proposal 1 / Felenov / T / C / 08:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the name sounds nice but now is not the time EmicraftNoob (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose what is a name change going to fix its just the same thing but different it will not save you from anything besides name related issues which I have never heard of being such issues also do a name change when its necessary right now it's not and its just looking like its being made off poor choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 339Breakingoof (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose What is the benefit to non-English speakers?--Hispano76 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Just no --Tornitiu (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't believe it would be appropriate to rebrand to WikiTide just few days after we retired the WikiTide name from the farm. Also, it would create some sort of confusion. --TreeIsLife (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose クールトレイン777 (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments[edit | edit source]
- I have posted an update here: Community portal#Update on rebranding. Harej (Miraheze) (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 3: Rename to Miratide[edit | edit source]
This was proposed on Discord. As explained above, I don't find a rename necessary. However, if one absolutely has to be done, I believe this name keeps our original identity and sounds better and more creative than "WikiTide" while also resolving the issue with the name "Miraheze" having 4 or 5 different pronunciations.
Support[edit | edit source]
- Weak support Per my reasoning in the proposal's introduction (I would prefer no rename but if there has to be one, this is what I will go with). コレイ (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Abstain[edit | edit source]
- Abstain I wish "WikiHive" was an available option, putting "wiki" into brand is a point I can agree with, and "hive" would describe a nature of a wiki farm platform better than "tide", and you get a bonus of keeping bee theme and iconic logo. Legroom (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain It would be kinda confusing, but not as much as when we would rebrand back to WikiTide. TreeIsLife (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose[edit | edit source]
- Oppose It doesn't really roll off of the tongue well. It's kinda a messy name and it doesn't seem work nicely. Also, it doesn't use "Wiki" as people were suggesting that our name should have. I also supported the first proposal Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 23:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think having "wiki" in the name is kind of uncreative. But, yeah, no rename would be best. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 23:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do not particularly mind WikiTide, nor would I be peeved to remain on Miraheze, but this option only combines the disadvantages of both and so I categorically Oppose it. As for the rest of the RfC and the handling of this matter including the board's role and communication, that is its own discussion I expect to come up sooner or later... --raidarr (💬) 00:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Raidarr; worst of both worlds. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 01:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't wish to vote further than this, but I'd oppose MiraTide categorically, especially per raidarr. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 04:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for now. I am not against rebranding, but now is not the time. I am not against the name by the way. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 07:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose If the rename was to add "Wiki" into the name this does not do it. I can understand "Wikiheze" but I still think it is a terrible idea, esp. now (as Rodejong mentioned) / Felenov / T / C / 09:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose if we are gonna rebrand at least make it to WikiTide, jeeze.. --╚pixDeVl╝ (Talk ✦ Contributions ✦ CentralAuth) 10:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose It sounds like a April Fools joke, so NO EmicraftNoob (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose I echo the sentiments of above; it doesn't sound cohesive. --Zeus, aka Blad (t • c • g) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose How about no? No name change is it needed its only their to save people from naming issues which the reasons for renaming are very weak and don't justified the need for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 339Breakingoof (talk • contribs) 21:26, 19 April 2024
- Oppose Per Raidarr.--铁桶 (Talk) 04:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments[edit | edit source]
Proposal 4: Retain Miraheze name for a time-limited duration (six months)[edit | edit source]
The Miraheze name is irreparably tarnished, but, at the same time, it's clear the community may not comfortable with the proposed alternatives on offer currently.
On a non-binding, advisory basis, recognizing the Board maintains jurisdiction over such matters as legal, financial, and marketing, the community advises keeping the Miraheze for a duration of up to six (6) months from the date this RfC is closed, which should not occur for at least thirty days from the timestamp of this Proposal 4, to allow community, board, and SRE discussion to occur in another venue (including Discord and IRC) on potential name alternatives. A SecurePoll as to the name should then occur, outlining the proponents' arguments for each, so everyone may !vote in private and not be persuaded by the 'mob mentality' that too often plagues RfCs and RfPs. If, after six months, the community still cannot agree on a new name, then the Board shall choose a name, recognizing that the current name was non-viable and the community could not coalesce around a new name. Doug (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Support[edit | edit source]
- Strong support as proposer, and per the articulated rationale in the proposal. Doug (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose[edit | edit source]
- Oppose You can take the name out of the organisation, the organisation is still the same! I do not believe that the reputation is irreparably tarnished [sic]. WikiTide will however forever be linked to Miraheze. If you want to rebrand, make sure that the reputation is cleaned. It may be a longer road to travel on, but WikiTide would benefit from the improvements that are made. When the organisation and its volunteers are working in unison, and all noses are pointed towards the same goals, rebranding would be more likely to succeed. Yes, it is an advice that is given, and the board could continue with the rebranding. But it would damage WikiTide Foundation more, as the trust between the community and it's board would forever be damaged. Every new decision that will be made by the board would be looked at with distrust. That is not what anyone wants. We need to win each others trust again, before we make such a big change. It's up to the board to make the community see it the same way. Then it would be a lot easier to get things done. Until the reputation is repaired, a rebrand is out of the question. You can't set a time limit on how (and if) a reputation is repaired. But that is my personal opinion. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 22:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but have to respectfully disagree on the Miraheze brand somehow not being irreparably tarnished. Many of our corporate users have already decamped to other wiki platforms or information repositories. Many corporations and non-profit organizations would not opt for a platform for many reasons, but among them is the reputation of Miraheze. Aside from that is the technical inferiority of MediaWiki wiki software, which still isn't fully and truly GDPR compliant without hacks, and, even then, still not. Until MediaWiki software allows for native, built-in user deletions and deletion of deleted users' contributions but live wikitext from pages, it will not be. It's also an incredibly bloated piece of software, relative to snappy software like BookStack or static websites built with dynamic website frameworks like Hugo, where content can live, often for free, on the "edge" (i.e., content delivery networks). Doug (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- You know Doug Miraheze is doing just fine now also recovering is a thing as new users have been coming here on a daily plus that tarnished thing happened years ago and isn't relevant now we have better management on wikis farming, better support, and a better system. The stuff Doug mentioned does not need rebranding it only just needs a software update which you don't need to rebrand for not to mention the community already disagreed with rebranding so bringing it up is just beating up a dead horse. TheFunny339YoshiPlushGuy (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- We do not have to be in agreement Doug. But what we should be is being reasonable. Dragging solved problems with you is not the way. Let that go and focus on what we can do. This wikifarm is build on MediaWiki. That will likely never change. If you want to host a wikifarm on a different software with less problems, then that is what you need to achieve separately. That will never be implemented here, as all the wiki's we do have are build on this software engine. We can improve, and that should be our first priority. As I have stated several times: Climb out of the muddy well first. Clean up the mess. When you have done that you can think about changing clothes. Changing your clothes while still climbing out of the muddy well is not wise my friend. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits Auth → 01:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- You know Doug Miraheze is doing just fine now also recovering is a thing as new users have been coming here on a daily plus that tarnished thing happened years ago and isn't relevant now we have better management on wikis farming, better support, and a better system. The stuff Doug mentioned does not need rebranding it only just needs a software update which you don't need to rebrand for not to mention the community already disagreed with rebranding so bringing it up is just beating up a dead horse. TheFunny339YoshiPlushGuy (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but have to respectfully disagree on the Miraheze brand somehow not being irreparably tarnished. Many of our corporate users have already decamped to other wiki platforms or information repositories. Many corporations and non-profit organizations would not opt for a platform for many reasons, but among them is the reputation of Miraheze. Aside from that is the technical inferiority of MediaWiki wiki software, which still isn't fully and truly GDPR compliant without hacks, and, even then, still not. Until MediaWiki software allows for native, built-in user deletions and deletion of deleted users' contributions but live wikitext from pages, it will not be. It's also an incredibly bloated piece of software, relative to snappy software like BookStack or static websites built with dynamic website frameworks like Hugo, where content can live, often for free, on the "edge" (i.e., content delivery networks). Doug (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on the basis of clear community opposition to renaming/rebranding the farm. There is substantial support to keep Miraheze, per proposal 1 and considerable opposition to renaming in proposals 2 and 3. Proposing to keep Miraheze for 6 months and then forcing a rename is counter to what the community has already fairly strongly communicated it supports. This proposal seems to be a kind of Trojan horse. – Jph2 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose I am sorry but the rebranding stuff has already been resolved and does not need to be dragged on longer then it needed to be. Stuff like this should be talked about when the community approves a time that they are ok with rebranding now is not the time the whole community opposed the rebranding thing days ago. Not to mention the board can't make choices that are very major without community input also the tarnished stuff was already done and over with plus Miraheze right now doesn't have any major issues besides the agent stuff of them leaving and the whole rebraning thing that the board pushed on the community without responding until some days after it was being talked about with some users leaving a letter to the board about what they as a community want to have happened after one of the board members responded about the rebranding situation. So I will be opposing this for dragging on something that is now just beating a dead horse. TheFunny339YoshiPlushGuy (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose Sorry, Doug, but you have missed a lot on what was happening and discussed around this matter, to proceed with such proposal. I do see this RfC still being open as a mistake though. Legroom (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose per above. Let's leave this can of cursed worms alone. Plus this seems to be bad for both sides tbh. --╚PixDeVl╝ (Talk ✦ Contributions ✦ CentralAuth) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments[edit | edit source]
- Comment: The board sees and receives your input. But as you say it is non-binding; it would have been better placed on our Request for Feedback rather than here. I'd like to see that one left open, since the Board is still open to feedback, however this page has served its purpose, and from my point of view every RFC herein can be safely closed. --Labster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.