Stuart P

So initially, this makes a lot of sense to me, Wikipedia is a brand a lot of people recognise, even in places where we, desiring to be a global community, don't have a strong presence.

One of the challenges, and something that causes people genuine confusion, is explaining Wikimedia/Wikipedia. It's not complex, but it is another slight hurdle in terms of comprehension, in terms of getting to the point.

I give this explanation on a regular basis, the main thing being that even after you've explained it, people don't really care what Wikimedia is, they care what it *does*, and what it *does* is... Wikipedia

But here we come to the problems. One being that relabelling #Wikimedia organisations as #Wikipedia organisations is somewhat disingenuous. Wikimedia UK for example, cannot, and does not represent all British Wikipedians (though of course we offer support so please ask).

It's true in the sense that a lot of our work is geared towards expanding Wikipedias, English and Welsh primarily, but we are not the Wikipedia project in itself.

The other problem is our movement's strategy, and our expressed goal of #KnowledgeEquity, representing other forms of knowledge, often those that are equally as valid, but possibly not compatible with the format and rules of #Wikipedia

Our solution there for people to collect (and share if they want) *could* be other platforms, projects and a wider, different community, perhaps joining up with #Wikipedia, but not Wikipedia per se. So why tie ourselves to "Wikipedia" if it represents only a part of our mission?

Many within our movement see Wikipedia as a tool, it's the most powerful tool, but it can't be used for everything. #Wikidata and #Wikibase have opened up new possibilities for sharing knowledge. There are many other #OER that solve other problems.

Don't get me wrong, #Wikipedia is the bedrock, and is one the best examples of what motivated, generous people can achieve collectively, and is an example of the potential the internet offers. But I am unsure it is what we should claim as a name for our wider work.

As an example of how we use the words, @wikimediauk has made a specific choice to run "Wikimedians in Residence" not "Wikipedians in Residence". We felt it allowed for wider scope, and helped us get away from the "someone who writes Wikipedia articles for you" idea about it.

and with a wider array of projects they were working on during their residencies, such as #WikimediaCommons and #Wikidata, it made sense to use a broader term

but this is our local perspective, and mileage may vary. An organisation doing outreach somewhere else in the world might really find it easier with a clearer, simpler brand to use, and I will be very interested to hear other's viewpoints.