|
<noinclude><languages/></noinclude>
<templatestyles src="AvoinGLAM/style.css" />
{{Portal navigation/Sound Logo|1}}{{anchor|overview}}
{{#if: {{{2|}}}|{{{2|}}}|
{{#tag: div
==This is a Brilliant Idea==
|[[{{{1|File:WikiWomen Erasmus+ gif.gif}}}|1500px]]
|class=mainimage {{{class|}}}
I just need to add something in consideration, I believe that Devices check the web whenever any user ask about something they dont go open the link of the ''link they found on the search engine'' I think they articulate all the information they discover in the search page when they type the "thing that the owner of the device" is asking about, so what I am trying to say here that you need to also consider the voice logo with that content that appears in the search page not only the inside the website itself.
}} }}
<div class="menu">
* [[Special:MyLanguage/WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project|WikiWomen Erasmus+ Proiektua]]
* [[Special:MyLanguage/WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project/About|Proiektuari buruz]]
== Proactive work around the license compliance ==
* [[Special:MyLanguage/WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project/Partners|Bazkideak]]
* [[Special:MyLanguage/WikiWomen Erasmus+ Project/The journey|<span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">The journey</span>]]
I like how you have been thinking about attribution already and would just like you to keep up the good work. In that, I think that WMF should be proactive and not only give advice on how proper attribution can be done, but also point out to reusers of content that don't do a good work in providing attribution. If they don't improve, the least the WMF should do would be to cease all cooperation, terminate any contracts and make some noise about it. <span style="color:#EAA">♥</span>[[User:Ainali|Ainali]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Ainali|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ainali|contributions]]</sub></small> 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
</div>
:Do you mean to say that attribution should be proactively enforced ''after'' a sound logo is created? [[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] ([[User talk:VGrigas (WMF)|talk]]) 16:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
::It's not necessarily connected to the logo itself, but rather with anyone WMF partner with around audio content. If someone doesn't listen to good advice even before the logo is created, that's a good time to stop helping them. So this comment is perhaps a bit misplaced, but I was reminded I read the thoughts about attribution for this type of reuse. <span style="color:#EAA">♥</span>[[User:Ainali|Ainali]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Ainali|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ainali|contributions]]</sub></small> 17:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
== Categories? ==
Why no categories? [[User:Kaganer|Kaganer]] ([[User talk:Kaganer|talk]]) 19:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:You can add them if you like, this page should be in appropriate categories! [[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] ([[User talk:VGrigas (WMF)|talk]]) 00:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
:: {{done}} [[User:Kaganer|Kaganer]] ([[User talk:Kaganer|talk]]) 10:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
== Comments by Andy Mabbett ==
Page is tl;dr, but sounds like a great idea.
This needs something as distinctive as the windows startup sound or the Nokia ringtone. Maybe four notes, or chords, to represent the four strokes of the letter "W"?
Has any thought been given to asking a well-known composer, ideally one friendly to the open movement, to write something suitable? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:We've shared some information about the early-stage thinking on how to make a sound logo [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Sound%20Logo here]. There's a lot to figure out, but having public submissions, including by talented composers, musicians, or sound designers, is something we're thinking through and can share more about in the coming weeks and months. --[[User:KStineRowe (WMF)|KStineRowe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:KStineRowe (WMF)|talk]]) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
== Will this make it more difficult for third parties to use Wikimedia content? ==
Once a sonic logo is created, will we ''require'' third parties to use that sonic logo whenever they use Wikimedia content to generate audible content? If so, wouldn't that essentially be a change to the licensing requirements?
And, if we ''require'' third parties to play the sonic logo before or after generating audible content, how likely is it that some percentage of third parties will not want to comply with those requirements and therefore stop using Wikimedia content in their applications? For instance, let's say that Google uses Wikimedia content to generate spoken answers to some questions from Google users, and Google decides that they don't want to update their platform to play a sonic logo sound from a different organization in the midst of their answer. Therefore, Google decides to stop using Wikimedia data to generate spoken content. Is that potential loss of Wikimedia-consuming users worth the other potential advantages of using a sonic logo? Has anyone reached out to any of the most significant third party users of Wikimedia content to understand how they might react if they were required to insert a sonic logo into their applications whenever they use Wikimedia content? [[User:Scottywong|Scottywong]] ([[User talk:Scottywong|talk]]) 00:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks for your question. You are correct - we cannot require third parties to use the sound logo under our open licensing requirements and fair use. We think there is a decent chance that we’ll be able to successfully request that the sound logo is used by some major technology players through the work of our Partnerships team, which has done some early outreach and received tentative and early stage positive responses. A sound logo, especially one that meets industry standards, offers some advantages over the lengthy verbage used by some audio devices at present (i.e. “Here’s some information I found on wikimedia.org” or “Here’s a summary from Wikitravel”) in that it is shorter and leverages the benefits of sound recognition over text. Ultimately, adoption is not something that we can or should force, as our knowledge is free for everyone.
:Moreover, creating a sound logo and putting it into use is a long journey. We hope to do things the right way by first focusing on selecting/making a really good sound logo that meets high standards for multiple use cases over time beyond just audio searches on major technology platforms. The complexities of use by Google, per your example, and others is something we’re actively thinking through, but will take time to figure out; offering a high quality sound makes these conversations easier to negotiate. [[User:KStineRowe (WMF)|KStineRowe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:KStineRowe (WMF)|talk]]) 16:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
::It's nice to hear that there's been some tentative positive responses! Getting this to actually be adopted seems likely to be the biggest obstacle. The overall impetus sounds good to me—when people know that information is coming from Wikipedia, that helps our brand and helps them flag errors for us to correct. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
== Can/should it include utterance of the word "Wikipedia"? ==
Are there any reasons that the sound logo should or should not include a voice pronunciation of "Wikipedia"? [[User:New4Q|New4Q]] ([[User talk:New4Q|talk]]) 11:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
: The community can of course take this almost any direction they decide, but most sound logos lack linguistic content (except inasmuch as they encode meaning by dint of existing and are arguably linguistic entities) for two reasons: the first is the difficulties of localisation. Wikimedia has shown itself to be surprising good at this, but going that route would mean a diversification of the sound logo which could complicate adoption efforts and make production of the needed variants more labour-intensive. The second is that sound logos are often quite short, on the order of merely a second or several (this is to allow them to be used in a wide range of contexts). While it's not impossible to fit a word into that span of course, it can be tricky to do it in a way that isn't confusing -- that is, enough information is given to make it not seem like just a random spoken word. If that information is also verbal, then we're back to "here's a summary from English Wikipedia" that most voice assistant software currently does. For these reasons, i18n (obviating the need for spoken language by using a sound effect, tones, or other nonlinguistic cues) is probably a better idea that l10n (translating). [[User:Arlo Barnes|Arlo Barnes]] ([[User talk:Arlo Barnes|talk]]) 08:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
== "Contest" Rules ==
I'm noticing that we're in the middle of a two month period listed as "Project team contest design". Is this design taking place in public anywhere? [[Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project|A previous branding initiative]] failed because off-wiki development lead to an incorrect assessment of community opinion, and it would be nice if this project didn't repeat those mistake by designing in private. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 13:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]], thanks for your comment, appreciate you being here and making sure movement opinion is accurately assessed in discussions. We want to make sure on- and off-wiki discussions are aligned and happening transparently. Because of omicron and other issues, this project has been delayed a little bit. We are currently planning for a community conversation around the contest design in May and June. We will update the page on Meta as well as the timeline soon. Would very much welcome your input into the contest design discussions when they begin. This is where community members, staff, and sound-enthusiasts will collaborate before the contest even starts. We look forward to engaging with you and other community members soon around this exciting project. [[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MPourzaki (WMF)|talk]]) 20:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks for getting back to me, and this sounds like a good start. It's important that as much as possible of the process be done in public, so that it can be improved as early as possible, as required. I saw the timeline said that the design was already in well in progress, so I'm glad that it's just a delay. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 22:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
== Refining and Reducing the Timeline ==
So, today we had a timeline for this project posted, which is great. However, looking at the timeline, it seems like the actual contest isn't scheduled to start until September, at the earliest, about four and a half months from now. That seems like an very extended timeline for actually starting the project. Such extended timelines are problematic for actually accomplishing things, as it's going to be hard to hold people's attention for well over half a year from the start to the finish of the process. One of the (many) problems with the movement branding process was: "From initiation to design, the process took too long." That's a problem this timeline has.
We can compare this to [[mw:Project:Proposal_for_changing_logo_of_MediaWiki,_2020]]. There, the proposal to change the logo was made on June 22nd, 2020; the first voting began on August 10, 2020; and a final logo was selected on October 24th, 2020 - 4 months and 2 days, including two weeks spent on preliminary WMF legal approval. So the whole contest process fit in the time between today and when this project starts.
I'd suggest rather than spending over third of a year organizing the process, we adopt the successful MediaWiki logo process - to have a month or so of discussions and proposals, a month of voting, and then a month of refinement and voting on a refined version.
It's not clear what spending two more months on community conversations, a month on contest design, and then a month solely devoted to Wikimania would bring to the table that wouldn't come out once the actual contest has started. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 02:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
* Hi [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]], thanks for your comment. Happy to share some more clarity. Our thinking was to host the community conversations from mid-May to mid-June (that doesn't look super clear on the timeline) ... hopefully we get a lot of fruitful engagement :) Then we'll take some time to refine and clean up the notes (i.e. July), work with a technical partner to set up the space for submissions, promote the contest and be ready ... hopefully for many submissions from around the world. I know a lot of musically-inclined Wikimedians and sound enthusiasts in the movement (I love [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Birds/lists/bird_songs WikiProject bird songs]), but creating a quality sound logo takes a bit of finesse. We don't want to assume people know how to capture good audio and mix it, and definitely don't want to leave anyone interested out. So, we are hoping to have workshops around Wikimania and then kick off the contest shortly after. You raise valid points though, perhaps we could start the community conversations later or start the actual contest earlier. Let us discuss internally and see what's possible. Thanks for caring. [[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MPourzaki (WMF)|talk]]) 09:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
*:@[[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]],
*:I don't understand what benefit the movement will have from community conversations that will take a month to start, a month to complete, and a month to summarize; especially when the bulk of conversation is almost certainly going to happen when the contest has already been promoted, submissions are coming in, and the whole thing is "real". We should have a conversation about how the contest should be run, and what submissions are and aren't acceptable. We should start with what worked for the MediaWiki logo contest, and figuring out how we want to change it, and at the same time working on the basic standards of what's acceptable as an audio logo. (eg, "no longer than a second" "48,000 samples per second or better uncompressed" "must work in multiple languages", etc.)
*:Conversations on this talk page, promoted slightly more widely (like to the news on the front page of meta, which would then be picked up by other sources), seems like all we'd really need before the start of the contest proper. Rather than a formal timeline, these should run until consensus is achieved, at which point the earliest possible date for the contest could be chosen and promotion could begin.
*:I'd strongly counsel against developing a novel platform for submissions, discussions, and voting. Two areas where previous brand work went wrong were "We intentionally designed a process that looked different from typical community consultations." and "Our “non typical” process was seen as less legitimate." We should avoid making these mistakes again. MediaWiki has the advantage of allowing discussion to be intermixed in a freeform manner with supporting information and voting, that's something that should be taken advantage of - especially when compared to creating a novel platform that will only be used once, something that will take time and money. I'd also worry somewhat that a less freeform system would eliminate novel approaches to sound logo design.
*:The project team should enable people who might not be familiar with wikis (eg. professional sound designers) to participate by accepting submission via email and posting on their behalf. That's a better use of WMF resources.
*:I don't think that we should be attempting to develop sound logo design talent as part of this project. That's not part of the WMF's [[Mission]]. By holding a contest that is widely publicized (certainly by CentralNotice, and perhaps even by the larger media), we'd be able to access existing talent inside and outside the community, which will likely produce better solutions.
*:Finally, I'd hope more discussions could take place in public, rather than internally. For the contest to be successful, the WMF will need to communicate well and in real-time, and it makes sense to start practicing that sooner, rather than later. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 14:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
*::Hi TomDotGov,
*::Sorry for the delay, [[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] is on vacation this week and it was a holiday for me yesterday. I like your ideas, you bring up reasoned thoughts above, I'll try to address what I can now:
*::*The community conversations in the timeline for May and June are there partly to discuss the contest design. Much of what you say above I think we can address then because we can all point to and critique and rationalize the same documents together once we have a contest model to discuss.
*::*Ideas for promotion of the contest are welcome.
*::*There are currently no plans to ''develop'' any sound logo design talent. We do plan to allow people to contribute where they can to develop ideas or find audio for existing audio design talent to use.
*::*There are plans to reach out to people unfamiliar with wikis, like professional sound designers.
*::I'll add that we are working on updating the sound logo page (and translations), sorry for any bugs. [[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] ([[User talk:VGrigas (WMF)|talk]]) 15:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]]Thank you for replying. I understand that it's _possible_ to address the contest design a month from now. The question is, is that the best approach. This project has, according to the timeline, been running for about 6 months at this point - do we need another four before the contest actually starts? What do you plan to learn in "Community conversations" that you didn't already learn in "Community outreach & discussion"? What's the hold up in starting community conversations here, now - just put a post on the front page of meta, send an email to wikimedia-l.
*:::It shouldn't take ten months for the core of the project to start. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 17:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
*::::I'm happy to reply. Omicron slowed the sound logo team down for several weeks, I do think we would have been further ahead now if that hadn't happened. In the 'community outreach & discussion' phase we (myself and others on the team) had:
*::::* Messaged many individuals and groups on talk pages who might have an interest in the sound logo because they are into audio, podcasters, media ,etc.
*::::* Made a video and published a [[wmfblog:2022/03/15/you-cant-see-the-puzzle-globe-on-an-audio-speaker-a-sound-logo-for-wikimedia/|blog post]] to raise awareness of the project. (you can see all the [[c:File:Sound_Logo_for_Wikimedia.webm|talk pages]] the video is on)
*::::* Monitored for any feedback on this talk page, and in other forums
*::::From that we read and learned what current community interest seems to be, and we have been developing a contest model. We want to start ''more'' and ''wider'' discussions when we have that model so that we have something new and ideally well-thought through to discuss. [[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] ([[User talk:VGrigas (WMF)|talk]]) 00:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] The first comparable, the mediawiki rebrand, took place during the worst of COVID - 2020 was before the first vaccines were available.
*:::::A second comparable is the [[Abstract_Wikipedia/Wikifunctions_logo_concept|Wikifunctions logo contest]], which started around mid-November 2020, and selected a logo around Mid-March, so again, about 4 months, with similar world issues. (The logo didn't pass legal, but the top candidates pointed the way to a useable logo.) It's probably a closer comparable, since the concept of Wikifunctions is very difficult to understand, and because there was no existing logo to work with.
*:::::According to the timeline, this process will have gone on for twice as long as the comparables before the contest begins, and the current plan is to design a "contest model" - that is, "design a non-typical process". These are the same things that caused previous branding work to fail. Could you post what you've been developing already - even notes would be fine - so we can compare it to successful branding processes, and come up with a synthesis sooner rather than later? [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 03:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd ask that WMF staff not remove the comparisons with other projects timelines until the problems with this project's timeline have been fully addressed. Comparative timelines provide the valuable context that comparable projects were finished in the time this project took on community outreach (ie, talk page messages and a minute-long video) To not include that is an important omission. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 00:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
:Hi {{Ping|TomDotGov}}, I’ve moved your timeline here to the talk page. This is the forum to discuss.
“By comparison, the timelines for successful branding efforts were:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Project
!June 2020
!July 2020
!August 2020
!September 2020
!October 2020
!November 2020
!December 2020
!January 2021
!February 2021
!March 2021
|-
![[mw:Project:Proposal_for_changing_logo_of_MediaWiki,_2020|MediaWiki Logo]]
|Proposals and discussions
|Proposals and discussions
|Proposals and discussion, Voting round one
|Voting round one, preliminary legal clearance, Voting round two
|Voting round two, logo selected
|colspan=5|Legal clearance
|-
![[Abstract_Wikipedia/Wikifunctions_logo_concept|Wikifunctions Logo]]
| colspan=6 |
| Brainstorming, setting up, finalizing rules
| Proposals and discussions
| Proposals and discussions
| Voting, logo selected*
|}
* Legal clearance and refinement of the Wikifunctions logo continued until October 2021.”
[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] ([[User talk:VGrigas (WMF)|talk]]) 16:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
:{{Ping|TomDotGov}} The sound logo is ''new'' and ''more complex'' than other previous image logo contests, and it needs to be developed. There isn't an 'off-the-shelf' generic model or template that can be easily modified and applied. I've stated already above that the sound logo team at WMF will have a model to present. The closest 'generic' or 'off-the-shelf' logo contest model is the [[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_selection_procedure|2013 logo selection procedure]], which was made with image logos in mind and does not address any of the technical, licensing, time-based (audio takes time to listen to) or accessibility considerations of a sound logo. Moving too quickly could quite easily cause problems in any of these areas. Please be patient, we will have a contest model to discuss. [[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] ([[User talk:VGrigas (WMF)|talk]]) 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
::[[@[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]]: I've replaced the comparable timelines on the front page, per the movement strategy goal of managing internal knowledge. Part of that is comparing future plans to where we've succeeded and failed in the past. This is part of the way that, as a member of the community, I'm trying to contribute to this project. Right now, this project is failing, in the same way the prior Movement Brand Project failed. I'd like to figure out what we can do to salvage this project.
::I don't believe that the prior successful projects are so different that this one requires a non-typical and less legitimate process. Sure, audio has its own considerations. So did trying to represent an abstract concept. All logos have constraints - that's no reason not to start with a typical process, and change it as required. I was part of the 2030 Movement Brand project, warning against such non-typical processes. That was ignored by the Foundation team, and look at how well that turned out. Let's not repeat that mistake here.
::I think the time for patience might have been in the first month or so of this project, the usual time it takes to get a project like this off the ground. So, no, instead of being patient I think we should immediately talk about what changes can be made to move this project from a path to failure to a path to success. Once we've done that, the comparative timelines will serve no purpose, and can be removed. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 20:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Hi @[[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]], I'm glad you care and that you're passionate about this project's success. Glad to have you as an ally and I look forward to receiving your input when the community conversations begin, especially your roadmap to success. Please help us get there. Per the Movement Strategy goal of Innovate in Free Knowledge, I think it's ok to experiment with new ways, no? Things shouldn't always be done as they were done before, it gets a little boring doesn't it? All across the movement we are struggling with burnout, exhaustion, renewed interest and participation. Anyway, I can't wait to share the draft contest proposal with you and other community members so we can finalize it together. In my humble experience, whenever I have shared a draft proposal with community members, discussions have been more fruitful and productive. We are all editors at heart after all. Phase 1 really was about exploration and mainly built around the project team attending existing community events from October to December. That was before I joined. Now we are picking things up again, starting right with a community conversation. There are no hidden agendas here, no secret meetings, no master plans. Though I'm struggling to feel it right now, I kindly ask that you assume good faith. Along with @[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]], we are trying to clean up the front page, that's why we have condensed the previous FAQ and created sub-pages. I have also moved the sign-up part up so people see it immediately and can remain engaged as we launch the consultation. Thanks for your determination for this project's success. [[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MPourzaki (WMF)|talk]]) 20:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
::::@[[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] I think the problem with experimentation - and why I first posted here - is that it's clear at this point the experiment hasn't been successful. We're at the point where we should be figuring out how to fix things, rather than staying on a timeline that starts the actual contest four months from now.
::::One problem that I experienced with previous branding work was a lot of work by WMF staff was being done off-wiki, in secret. It would emerge, community feedback would be that changes needed to be made, but they'd never _be_ made, and the process would proceed to the next step, unfixed. It's not great for anyone that a ton of work is done, and then we have to choose between redoing it or going with something that doesn't respect community concerns and prerogative. The successful branding projects involved collaboration, not consultation. That means developing the contest proposal with the community early, rather than waiting to share it.
::::From the experience of past projects, if we were to collaborate on-wiki to develop the contest proposal, we'd be ready to start in about a month. What worries me from my prior experience with branding is that a ton of work will be performed without a meaningful opportunity for it to be improved by editing and the effective bold-revert-discuss process. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 23:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::I hear you @[[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]], I understand you, and that approach would upset me too, it's not how I work personally. I value volunteer time–I come from the HIV sector where so much is run by amazing volunteers–and make sure when we do consult communities or have conversations in the movement, it's a true collaboration with real intentions and an open dialogue, no secret agendas. This is going to be a public contest after all, so it can't be secret. We really wanna figure things out together. [[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MPourzaki (WMF)|talk]]) 13:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] That was exactly the same thing that was said during the Movement Brand Project - right before the Foundation Brand Project Team worked off-wiki to produce three proposals that were almost the exact opposite of what the community required of them. Experience shows that 'consulting communites' and 'having conversations' haven't worked well in the branding space, and collaborating on-wiki works quickly and well.
::::::What I'd like to figure out is given that on-wiki collaboration rapidly produces good results, and that on-wiki collaborations in the branding space do not require additional steps to be successful, why does the project schedule contain those additional steps? What value does off-wiki work bring that won't be brought by less dangerous on-wiki collaboration? [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 15:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Hi @[[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]], it seems like you have a hard time moving on from the renaming kerfuffle, I understand. This just isn't related. Sound logo is an open global contest with an open vote at the end, not a one-way proposal at all. What we are putting forward during the conversations is actually the approach to the contest – the where, what, and how of the contest itself, not the actual sound. And we hope to finalize this with the community on wiki to then officially launch the contest. That's pretty much it. Take care. [[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MPourzaki (WMF)|talk]]) 19:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] It's the next branding project after that one, and created in the same Board resolution that ended the previous project, so I believe you're confused if you think the two projects are unrelated. This is a good opportunity to show the WMF has learned from it's mistakes - and that's an opportunity that's currently being wasted. You should not be the ones putting forward the approach to the contest when the community knows how to effectively run them - that was the mistake behind the 2030 movement brand project, and it's a mistake that seems very likely to be made again, from the way you're interacting here.
::::::::I'm trying to help this return to the right track early, before it stops being an inefficient failing project and turns into another eminently predictable disaster. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 21:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::But there isn't just one way to run a contest, just like there isn't one community. A proposal that brings multiple approaches together and one that is open to co-creation, edits, and overhaul is a solid foundation for a wide-reaching contest. I appreciate your help and input. [[User:MPourzaki (WMF)|MPourzaki (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MPourzaki (WMF)|talk]]) 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
== Questions grid ==
I thought that starting a grid to ask and answer ''non''-frequently-asked-questions might be helpful for reference and understanding. Please feel free to add or edit appropriately:
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Caption text
|-
! how long of a sound logo Amazon, Apple, and Google (and other voice assistant providers) would be willing to play before information sourced from Wikipedia. Would it be longer if the sound logo took over part of the response (ie, a stylized 'According to Wikipedia'.)? !! Question 2 !! Question 3
|-
| Answer A, Wikimedian A || Example || Example
|-
| Answer B, Wikimedian B || Example || Example
|-
| Answer C, Wikimedian C || Example || Example
|}
[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] ([[User talk:VGrigas (WMF)|talk]]) 14:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] I don't get what the grid is supposed to entail, but I would like to know how long of a sound logo Amazon, Apple, and Google (and other voice assistant providers) would be willing to play before information sourced from Wikipedia. Would it be longer if the sound logo took over part of the response (ie, a stylized 'According to Wikipedia'.)? [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 00:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:VGrigas (WMF)|VGrigas (WMF)]] Is there any progress to answering this question? I don't see how this process could move forward without figuring out what the requirements are. [[User:TomDotGov|TomDotGov]] ([[User talk:TomDotGov|talk]]) 20:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
| 