 Give us a second just to push it live. I think we are good to go, Samia. Are we live? We're live. Hello everyone, welcome to the movement brand project concept presentation. My name is Samir Shabati from the foundation project team. I'm happy to be here today with my colleagues, Essie, Zach, and Elena from the Rikimedia Foundation, and Sophie and Kim Andre from SNHETA. This is a big moment where we are concluding phase one of this project by presenting a concept on which our new brand system will be built. In similar situations, this will be a meeting for five or six people sitting around the table in a closed room. But this is not how it works in a movement like ours. Rikimedia is built upon the idea of cooperation, the identity of a movement that aspires to giving people access to the sum of all human knowledge can't be established properly unless everyone is at the table. We are so happy that SNHETA, a world leader in design, architecture, and branding are our partners in this project. In the past few months, they have been open to hear many different perspectives, travel the world with us and be committed to an open process that gets informed by all of you. We would never have been able to do this without your cooperation and input. In the past few months, nearly 100 of you from over 40 countries joined us in the brand workshops. Each of you took this message forward and shared it with their communities to discuss it and you are here with us today to share this moment. So thank you so much for everything you have already contributed and for what's to come next. So in the look at today's agenda, so we'll start with Essie to walk us through the overall project timeline, key dates to mark on your calendar, and it will be followed by a little background on how this all started by Zach. And then we'll be passing it over to our awesome Sophie and Camandre from SNHETA where they will explain to us what concepts are, how they help in branding and leading to today's big moment, which is presenting that unified concepts. Afterwards, they will share with us the next step, which is the third exercise. Finally, there will be a Q&A with Elena, so please don't forget to write down your questions during the presentation and drop them in the chat here on Zoom, YouTube, or IRC channel media office. Please don't wait until the Q&A if you have any questions, drop them right away and we'll keep them for the discussion time. All right, best thing gets over to Essie with the project timeline. Thank you, Samir. Hi, everyone. My name is Essie Zah, I'm the Senior Brand Manager here at the Foundation helping to lead this project. So the timeline of the two 2030 movement brand project. The big part of this is that there's four key phases that we need to go through. Right now, we are today wrapping up phase one, which is concept development with a final exercise for people to get involved with. So once that is all complete, we have completed phase one. From there, we're going to move into phase two naming convention in May. So during this time, we're going to develop the naming convention proposals that will then be shared out for movement-wide feedback in the middle of May. So from there, once we have that feedback, we move into phase three in June, which is the design system where we would be developing the design system proposals, as well as revising the naming conventions with the feedback that came through to then release that to the movement-wide feedback. From there, with all that feedback, phase four, the final phase, we'll be putting together the full brand proposal, which will then also include the style guide of how it will come to life, for then that to be presented to the Board of Trustees afterwards. So this is the full timeline that the next couple of months that we will be going through. Having said that, there's some key dates that we do know of. On Monday, we're going to share out the unified concept. On Monday from the 20th to the 26th of April, we'll have an exercise up on brandingwikipedia.org for people to help bring to life the visuals of the unified concept. In May, from May 7th to the 21st will be when the naming convention proposals will be released for the movement-wide feedback. And then June, as much as we can lock to right now, is when we will be releasing the revised naming convention as well as the design system proposal for feedback. I do just want to note with the current times that we're living in with COVID-19, we believe that these are the right dates. If anything does change, which we are monitoring, we will then update you if there are any changes. So a little bit more on naming and I know that this is a sensitive subject. I know that there has been many different discussions happening about this. We have read the RFC and there's been some great actually suggestions and learnings that is coming out of everyone discussing this. But again, just to go back to the timeline, we are just about to head into the naming convention proposal phase. And what we can share, what we do know is that there will be multiple naming approaches in the proposal that is shared out. And there will be options that sway heavily more using Wikipedia and there may be options that don't sway as heavily using Wikipedia. The proposal will be released for two weeks for feedback. And the way that we're going to be asking for feedback will be for people to view it based on the movement branding criteria that was set by the community in 2019. So it will be linked to what we have learned that the movement branding really needs to be for success, to set it up for success. And having said that, I know that there's some people that have joined this call that have been along this process that have been in other presentations about this. So they're like, yep, we got it. There's other people that are joining us for the first time and don't necessarily know all the background and the research and the discussions that have happened before this project kicked off. So I want to pass it over to Zach now to take us through a bit more of the background to sort of say how that we got here. Thanks Essie. And thank you all for being here amidst this outrageous and unprecedented moment in which so many of us have had to change our lives. We hope that you're well. We hope that you're safe. And I thank you for making time to join us either today in this live or in the future. Hello, shout out to our people watching in the future. We're really grateful for your attention and for your participation in this. So let's talk about how we got here. And in fact, we'll talk about who we are. This started with an email in 2003, an email proposed that we, the people who were then working on wiki wiki projects should refer to ourselves as wikimedia with an M. It was a moment to not only think about what the we of the communities working on these projects should be called, but even the idea that there was a common umbrella encompassing spirit between all of the work that all of these people all around the world were doing. If we continue forward, that suggestion from that email became a name that was adopted by chapters by user groups by our communities as they grow as they define new events, as we define the work that we do, calling it wikimedia movement strategy, and such. There was also the adoption later of this round logo in three colors. And this logo came from a different moment. It actually was a runner up in a logo contest for the wikipedia project. So the puzzle globe, which we all know well was the number one winner. This right here was number two. And it was adopted to be the mark of our movement. In 2017, a really ambitious process began, which many of you have either participated in or even led. It is the movement strategy process. And it began by asking fundamental questions. What does the movement want to build together over the next 13 years. What is it that we are really passionate about committed to. What we see there is the biggest broadest we it's the people who are here now, it's the people we want to invite in, it's our partners and hindered organizations, it's our donors, it's our users, it's, what is this all driving towards. And incredibly, this was summarized down into a strategic direction, which is by 2030, we will become the essential infrastructure of free knowledge and anyone who shares her vision can join us. It's a really exciting, ambitious and far reaching goals to set a true strategic direction. But when the wikipedia foundation communications team received this saw it. Reddit, we became very interested and even concerned about the second part of the strategic direction, the anyone who shares our vision can join us. Because there are so many people for us to reach so many people around the world that we would want to have within our movement. We would want to have them join us. And we began to do research on how well known our movement was, how well known the name wikipedia was. So in 2018, we began brand research with partners called wolf on and they did a study of the individual projects, and how well known they were around the world. And they asked how well known wikipedia was, and found something that our communities have been telling the foundation for a number of years that wikipedia is unknown. It's a little confusing and it's unclear to people outside the movement inside the movement it is an exciting comprehensive phrase outside the movement. It seems confusing with wikipedia because it's one word away, or it can be rendered as wiki media and people imagine that it has podcasts or videos. In fact, people imagine wikipedia as what we inside the movement know as wikipedia comments. We recognized that there was an opportunity for us to work towards an evolved set of movement branding. We wondered, what if we updated our movement branding, what would need to change, what should stay the same. And those same partners who did the brand research in 2019 shared a proposal, which we shared to the board and to our communities around the world, which for our brand research partners was an incredibly obvious thing, but for us inside of the movement was actually something we knew was difficult and complicated. What if we used wikipedia as the center of movement naming. And the pros of this are that wikipedia is the best known of all our projects, it's better known than wikipedia, it is the tool that so many of our communities use to introduce themselves and their work, it's how we go out to partners. And how we do fundraising to support our mission. But it's also very rooted in one way of thinking and one set of projects. And as we've learned through the RFC and subsequent discussions. There's a number of reasons it might not work as a name. The feedback we got to that moment where we shared that research, and we shared that suggestion. There's a lot of commonalities, more than 300 long comments were shared back to the foundation about this idea at that time, and more have been shared sense. We see these falling into the following clusters. Overall, the movement has a number of names that are closely related, and they cause confusion. In fact, we even have names that are not related to us that people think are related to us, like wiki leaks, or wiki how. A question was asked, how will changing movement names, which is a part of changing movement branding improve things so that everyone can clearly and simply understand what we are and what we are not. We've heard a number of comments about reputation. Wikipedia has a very positive reputation in some parts of the world, and a very. It has a concerning reputation other parts of the world. When there's a positive association, are we simply hijacking that. Will the bad reputation other parts of the world limit the work of communities that are related to the overall movement. Lots of questions and comments about reputation. The other wiki projects, the other wiki projects current branding, wikimedia indicates that there are many projects as that email we looked at a moment ago showed, we are all within one system and wikimedia wall does not well known expresses the idea that there are many things happening. How would changing our name continue even improve our ability to celebrate the other projects. We know that in some parts of the world, there is a great deal of scrutiny from governments from the press, from corporations, and sometimes from the public. And we do not want our communities to be at risk because of the names they use being confusing or misassociating them with certain responsibilities. My headset is making a something. Support movement growth. Branding should directly aid movement understanding, you should be able to understand that we are movement from seeing our movement brand. Finally, there's always a question within the wikimedia movement around process of change unilateral changes are not what we do. So, however movement branding is changed and adjusted. How can it be done slowly opt in in phases, and to the people who want to do it, empowering every affiliate to make their own decision. These were the themes that we saw when we shared branding ideas in 2018 and into 2019. But as se will point out, these actually were the beginning of us having a better and better sense of how we can do more powerful work together to set our entire movement up to achieve the 2030 goals. Se why don't you jump back in here and I'll figure out what's going on with my microphone. Okay. Thanks Zach. One of those things was really has become a checklist our guide to creating a good movement branding what how do we know that we're making the right decisions to set us up for success for something that we can all use that becomes a tool. So this is how we then will evaluate all these key moments going forward does does what we're creating explain who we are and resolve confusion. Does it protect and improve our reputation. Does it support and elevate the sisters projects. Does it assess and address legal risks. Does it support movement growth doesn't invite people to come in and want to be a part of this. And also a key thing to make sure is that it's not being forced that it is opt in for movement members from affiliate affiliates to individual contributors as well. This is when I said the movement branding criteria like how will we ask for feedback it will be feedback on these key objectives that we have received from the community to make sure that we're setting this whole thing up for success. And that now brings us to back to where we are in the timeline for the unified concept, which has taken a few months we have traveled around the world we've had workshops online offline many different just different discussions by email and Facebook. So, we have now very proud to come to this big moment to solidify the unified concept. But I think the key thing to remember for that for what's been happening in the past couple of months is that we are making a new movement branded but guided by all of us. So I'm very happy to pass this on now to Smohetta to take us through the unified concept. Thank you so much. See, we'll get set up here. There we go. Yeah, thank you again. See, we in the SNET are truly excited that we can be on this journey together with you with the movement. And as you said, it's especially exciting today, since this is a key movement in our collaborative design process. I'm Kim Andrea Oltusen. I'm a designer and developer at SNETA and later you'll meet my colleague Sofia Plato, senior designer. And we represent a bigger team here at SNETA that have been a part of all the work so far with the workshops and the concepts development. We strongly believe in co-creation by working together so we can create meaningful design and architecture. And we believe that concepts are a powerful tool to make that happen. And today we're going to look at the process, the concepts that were created in the workshops and ultimately the unified concepts. We had workshops in Norway, in India and online to create these concepts seeking to answer the question of who are we. And this requires meeting, listening, asking questions, learning and also creating together. And we are very thankful that we can experience the energy and knowledge of this community and movement and together we have created 23 concepts. And each, every single one of these concepts holds meaning and value since it comes from hundreds of thoughts and actions from different people. They were created from eight workshops with 97 members of the Wikimedia community coming from a total of 41 countries. And we would like to thank all that gave their time and energy to engage in these workshops all around the world. But what is really a concept? We believe in the value of a concept being the foundation for the creative work. We believe that a concept creates meaning, it validates all the choices that we have to make throughout the process and it establishes a common understanding between all of us that are in the project. And our way of working with concepts is defined through the book IdeaWork, which is the result of a four year research project by Sintef, one of Europe's largest independent research organizations. And in this book, 10 creative drivers are defined and they aim to answer how we solve problems, how we innovate and how we create design and architecture. And we focused on three of these drivers in our workshops, prepping, zooming out and getting physical. Because we believe that we think as much with our hands and bodies as with us with our heads. So in the last session, each group has to build a model of the concept they create. Often it's physical models, but it also can be individual models. And to explain what we mean with our concept, what a concept is, we can take a look at the concept of a tree. There's over 3 trillion of them in the world and it's over 60,000 different species. They range from pine, spruce, oak, palms, you name it. And a tree also consists of many different parts. You have roots, you have the trunk, you have branches, and you have leaves. And all of this is contained within the concept of a tree. And this generalization shows how we can extract similarities from numerous different examples and how this simplification enables higher level thinking or conceptual thinking. So we can say that the simple tree at the bottom of the diagram here contains an open sub for talking about all this information of trees. And this simple illustration could mean something different if it didn't put it into this tree context. It could have been a table tennis racket or maybe an ice cream. But the point here is that this means that the context defines the meaning of the concept. And the context of Wikimedia will also regulate the meaning of the concept we'll show you later. And to take a closer look at how concepts guide the creative work and to understand how they inform and guide the process, we're going to show you two examples from previous projects that we have done. And we use these concepts for projects of all types and sizes within both design and architecture. And the first example that we're going to show you is from 1989. And it's the library of Alexandria. And for this project, we worked with a concept of a microchip. And we think the microchip is particularly interesting in this context since it highlights the ability and also the need or knowledge to exist in multiple forms, that being oral, written, illustrated, and also digital. And the elements that you see on the disk here, that's microchips. And they are the essential component in computers. So this concept then opens up for the binary language of computers, which consists of zeros and ones, or we could say plus and minus. And this plus minus analogy informed the project in different ways. You can see it here through how part of the building is under the surface and how part of the building is over the surface. The concept also reminds us that when we talk about the past, we have to talk about the future. And it reminds us that it's not about the architecture itself and the storing of knowledge physically, but making a place for people to meet and to share that knowledge. And the concept also inspired the circular shape of the building itself. The second example that we want to show to you to explain how we work with concepts and how they inform the process is the identity and strategy project uniting all the 44 national parks in Norway. And they are a broad community from all around the country. And through five workshops with all parts of the community, we created the concept portal together. And this concept communicates the dual message of both protecting the nature while also still inviting you into the nature. When you go through a portal, it's like transferring into a different world. In this case, in this context, a world where you can explore raw Norwegian nature while we can still convey that you as a visitor also need to care and protect it. And these are some of the concept models that they built in their process. And these models and concepts ultimately led to the portal concepts that we ended up with. The concept informed the logo symbol as we see here, which can be both an abstraction of an N, but also a portal. It informed the elements in the identity here shown through the signage system that acts as portals themselves, leading you into the nature. And also to the image style, showing portals, natural portals in nature. So we hope that these two examples show how concepts can inform the creative process and open up for bigger stories. And now I'm going to give a hand over to Sofia, which will take you through the 23 concepts that you made in the workshop. Thank you, Kim Andre. And thanks to all of you out there for sharing this moment with us. I will now present the 23 concepts that we have created together. And on behalf of us and the SNERDA team, I have to say that this has been such an interesting journey of discovery. We were so thankful to have got the chance to be able to meet so many of you in person and experience the differences and similarities that this movement is built on. And by meeting you all, whether it's been in the digital room or in a physical one, we have been given the chance to learn, to ask questions and to understand. And most importantly, as Kim Andre has been talking about, to create together. And it's been exciting to learn how you see yourself and how this materializes into the different concepts that have been created and to see the links between all of them. So I think it's important to say that all the 23 concepts that have been created are equally important to guide the process of defining the one unified concept that we will look at shortly. So looking through the 23 concepts now, some of them have been created physically and some of them have been created online and visualized. And they have been created in our workshops in Norway, in India and online. So the first concept is builders. Then we had the concept expand. We had Musaik, Beovoda, which has a similar meaning to work in progress in Hebrew. Collaboration, garden, nurturing. We had fire. We had Nathakatu, which is Arabic and can be translated to stand together. We had the concept of beehive, universe, public goods together. Waheda, which can be translated to unity and community. Ocean, sun, galaxy, ocean again, rayonment, honeycomb, particle, and connections. And already in the workshops, we saw commonalities between many of the concepts. And after the last workshop, we continued identifying patterns and shared meanings. So that led to us defining three categories to help navigate the concepts, where some of the concepts that you created talk more about the individual people. Some talk about the collective belief and some talk about the bigger systems and connections. And to further facilitate co-creation and to continue on this transparent and open progress process we had initiated, we invited the whole community to review the concepts that had been created in the workshops so that we could continue the process as an even bigger group. So to investigate the meaning and potential of the concepts created in the workshops, we built a tool to review the concepts. The tool makes the concept accessible to the community, getting input from you who know the movement best. It strengthens the global perspective and helps to discover patterns and common denominators for how to build meaning in the unified concepts. And this led to a lot of valuable inputs. It was a very useful tool. You all came on and review the concepts and by that told us what resonated best to you. You left 47 comments. You gave 1,224 endorsements to the concepts that you liked the best. And this all was done by 1,384 visits. And this was of course also Cheryl Metaviki to the 87 user groups, 39 chapters, 590 members of the brand network and to the 97 workshop attendees. And based on the input from all of you through comments and validations and with the basis in 23 concepts, we see that we have created together. Our job has been to summarize, combine and further develop this into one concept. One concept that holds all of this meaning. And to explain the concepts, we have created a film. I think the movement means different things for different people. Participation is very important for us as a movement, trying to involve all of our communities. The ideas that just came streaming from one person after another. When I heard the other two groups come up with what they had and I felt that there was very much a connection between them. We're all interesting and we all know something and it's a representation of how we think, how we create, how we connect. The 23 concepts created in the workshops have been unified into one concept. Interconnection. Interconnections are mutual connections between two or more things. From the smallest interconnections to the bigger picture. We find interconnections in nature through ecosystems. Interconnections between people creating something bigger. Interconnections between languages, cultures and beliefs. Enabling us to understand, discuss, contribute and share knowledge. Interconnection. So, interconnection is the unified concept. And this concept is the combination of the work you have done so far in this process. And we as a team are very happy and enthusiastic about the result of this. We believe that the concept will be a great tool moving forward in the design process. Because interconnection will help us create a design system that is universal and accessible. What we are working towards is that the result of this design process will become a tool for you all to reach the 2030 goals. To continue the work towards becoming an essential infrastructure for knowledge. And open up for more people around the world to join the movement. And to make knowledge accessible to all. And we believe that the concept interconnection can guide us in this process. Interconnection will inform and validate the naming system. The concept will be a tool to guide us when we're developing the naming system. To make sure that we acknowledge all the parts of the movement and how they are interconnected. Interconnection will help us answer the question, who are we? We see the concept as a tool to clarify who you are as a movement and what you stand for. And lastly, interconnection will ensure that the process is guided by you. The most important goal in this process for us has been to open up an invite in for continuous co-creation and inputs. And to continue on this note, we would like to invite you to give input also here. So by this, we invite you to take part in the third exercise in this process. By visualizing interconnections. So handing it over to you, we ask for your help on researching and exploring what interconnections mean and looks like in a Wikimedia context. And we ask you to give us visual input on how you see interconnections. This will be hosted at the brand hub, brandenwickimedia.org, and it will be open from April 20th until April 26th. And all the details will be included with the exercise coming out in the 20th. And by this, we would like to thank you all for following and for being part of the process so far. And we are excited to see how you visualize and interpret the concepts interconnections. Thank you. Thank you, Sophia. Thank you, Kim Andre. Thank you to our colleagues in Snowheta for that comprehensive overview. All right, I'm just sharing my screen again. Somehow, where is my presentation gone? One second. Oh, coming. All right, we're just going to go back to the timeline very quickly to just show because it's a big moment here. Always. That we are now going to be able to move into phase two naming conventions. So that's what will be coming up in May. And I just am going to hand it over to Elena to start the discussion process. But I also just wanted to put up on the screen a bit of a summary of what's being discussed today with the key dates where you can find more information as well as some of the naming details. So Elena, I'm going to pass it over to you. Thanks, I see. All right, so we have been monitoring questions throughout the presentation. We have a lot of them, which is great. I have been trying to organize thematically and consolidate so that we can get to everything. I did not hear your question verbatim, but I hope to capture the meaning behind everybody's question and get an answer for everybody's question. Okay, so the first set of questions that I want to field are about the scope of the project because I think that's important to clarify first. So the first set of questions will go to the brand project team Zach or SC. First, is this project about a brand for the foundation or for the movement. Is it about websites and the foundation or, or is it about more than that. And if it is about the movement, why does the board need to have a final say in it. And if it is about the movement, how do we formally bring along the affiliates in this change. And thank you for posing that to the folks who added that to this discussion. So the first things I'll say about the scope is what this is not. This is not a project that has interest in any rebranding design or naming for the wiki projects the Wikimedia projects so wiki data, Wikimedia Commons, those communities are the folks that drive the branding decisions for those projects. So projects are not in scope. What is in scope are the movement identity items. And that is anyone who is using Wikimedia today. The name, and the circle the round all logo, we've invited everyone who is working with that which we usually refer to as affiliates we've invited them to join this process. Sameer is our lead there and has been doing outreach on mailing lists on to specific village pumps since 2019. And we've sent many invitations for affiliates to nominate an affiliate liaison, somebody who can be a bridge from this project into those communities so that we have feedback and perspectives from those communities. What that means is that, while the foundation recognizes the need to evolve the foundations branding the foundations name and the foundations logos. We don't want to do this alone. The whole purpose of branding is really to show connection. Here we can say it's to show interconnection between our communities between the parts of our movement between the projects, and the people who make them happen, which is why this process is open and iterative, and why we're inviting you today to hear about how we're doing things. And in May, to comment and engage with the naming ideas, we want to produce a system that people are ready to use excited to use and that they recognize their own direction and needs within. Thank you. Just a reminder Zach hold up your headset so we can do it so bizarre. Miss behaving microphone. Let's do it. Okay, so the next set of questions is about the process going forward. I think that se you touched on this but just to clarify further. So what do we mean when we're talking about movement wide feedback. What does movement wide feedback look like. And how much does the feedback consider internal risks, especially to community health and project morale. Right. Okay, so movement wide feedback. What we mean, but can you hear me. Very well. Yeah, I think you're fine. I think I'm the person who's going to hold it up here in this exciting position. So movement wide feedback is more that it is open up that that anyone a part of the movement can review and then be able to put their input and feedback based on what the proposal is. And that it's I think we sort of colleagues like the big call to action the big mo like sort of push it out as in every angle that we can to make sure that people see it. So then they can be able to review it and give their feedback. We also have the liaisons the affiliate liaisons that we've been asking from affiliates to have one representative that they're also going to help us make sure that we're getting feedback from affiliate groups in this moment to And when it comes to just the second part of this question when it comes to the health and well being of everyone in the movement and especially with what's going on at the moment we we're taking that into a lot of consideration we we did do a two week pause previously with everyone for the We've moved the timeline a month and also opened up that moment for feedback to be longer than what we originally had in in our timeline but I do want you to know that we we are constantly monitoring it and and reviewing feedback that we're getting based on on the timeline. Okay, great. And when we release the multiple naming approaches next month might there be a listing of anticipated benefits and risks for each approach different pluses and minuses for different communities and different geographies they're going to be a risk assessment Like I want to just jump in. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, there will. Yeah, the name naming is a tool. Just as branding is a tool. And so even bringing forward ideas on what naming options we think are worthy of consideration. We're doing a lot of that. The project team. So we will have some advantages and disadvantages within the proposals of these systems, but it's another area where we want people to tell us what we don't see that within your experience within your communities within your region. There are other risks to these sorts of naming factors. So we will definitely start that and I want to shout out to our colleagues in the foundation colleagues of mine in fundraising in product in tech and in legal especially for helping us do that work and evaluate just how helpful or concerning naming proposals might be. It's all to say that the next phase, which I will tell you really I am excited about is going to be a moment to look at possibilities we know everyone is so eager to talk about naming and so are we. We're going to be naming possibilities with some naming advantages and risks and the conversation then will be really us as a movement doing what we do best, proofing challenging debating adding context to make this really strong. Thanks so now I want to jump to a really important topic which is the RFC. A couple of different questions about the RFC. And I'll try to consolidate as much as possible. The RFC has already indicated that the movement is not considered acceptable to use the name Wikipedia. So why is exploring branding using Wikipedia still worth it. And does it concern the branding team that 90% of the respondents the RFC were against the pivot to Wikipedia foundation type label and that that may be odds with the KPIs set by the team. So that RFC was obviously something we paid close attention to. And we whenever we see comments and feedback on branding and naming se myself and the group of people working on this project are attentive to it. We feel that RFC was a little bit ahead of our process in that it was not a complete system idea. It was a kind of a in principle idea. And so we're actually eager to see with a specific use of Wikipedia, how people feel. Moreover, as Essie mentioned with collecting movement wide feedback we know there's many perspectives across the movement on many topics and that's why we want to invite many perspectives to just join us in thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia. And then we have to make clear about the advantages of using Wikipedia and they are profound is that when we think about the next decade of movement growth of movement health, making sure that our projects reach the goals that we've set for 2030. It's an incredible amount of work to do. It really is just an extraordinary amount of work. We have billions of more people to invite into our movement billions. And yet we remain, you know, we are a nonprofit we are scrappy we are human driven. And so we do not want to do what other organizations would do which is spend a lot of money actually on marketing, which means we look inside of our system. And that's where we've seen that Wikipedia has over 80% awareness in Western Europe and North America and fast growing awareness in emerging regions, Africa, South America, Asia, and that's an incredible tool for us. It really is. It's also in the in the emerging regions. It's, it's not just that people think it's Wikipedia alone. They see it as knowledge. The research we've seen says that while we within the movement see Wikipedia as a narrow part of our activities. When internet users around the world who are not familiar with our movement, see the name hear the name, they think of a knowledge resource, a knowledge platform, and that's very close to the spirit that we wish to impart for how people understand our movement. So that's why we've, we've definitely heard from the RFC there's great sensitivity in using Wikipedia there's some, there's some strong pushback I mean we've definitely just seen that absolutely. And it's one of the reasons why we will have options that will not rely on Wikipedia as much and some that do because we want to continue that discussion, not concluded. So I was actually going to jump over to some questions for snow had to but but the different set of questions I think dovetails more appropriately with what you were just saying so going to touch on some questions quickly and then jump over to snow had to questions for them. So this, this set of questions is about Wikimedia as a possible solution. And people want to know, because Wikimedia is understand Wikimedia internally. Could the work really have been done to demystify that internal concept externally and promote Wikimedia push the Wikimedia brand forward, rather than pivot to Wikipedia. Was that considered. And will any of the approaches that are going to be proposed and may utilize the word Wikimedia. Yeah, first part of the question is really rich. So Wikimedia is a name we've been using as a movement for almost 17 years. Since that shelled an email from 2003. And in that time it has certainly just as the questions, askers are indicating it's gained meaning and emotional value. This is an identity for who we are as a movement. But we, the research we've done, which links up with what we've been told by community leaders and participants is that the word itself is basically flawed as a brand concept. People confuse it with Wikipedia already because it's a single word away. We've had people say that when they went to visa offices they were asked, Wikimedia, don't you mean Wikipedia, and then it's led to complicating factors. We've had press and donors label our organizations as Wikipedia already. And that is confusing because that's somewhat accurate but it's not the correct name. So what we've understood through those data points is just that there's a fundamental opportunity for us to improve and to reduce confusion. That's the number one goal that we found in feedback just as this question is asking like how do we reduce confusion between what's a project of ours and what isn't what is our movement and what is not. So that's why we are exploring a new idea is basically Wikimedia has had 17 years of being our organizing brand name and it has not achieved the things we want it to. And that's not just because of an investment and effort of support for it but because it as a brand identity itself is not doing the job we want it to. Second question was different. What was it Elena there. I think you covered it, but yeah, will we will Wikimedia be used in any of the proposals that are coming in the proposals. Oh, I believe the naming proposals we will have will not have Wikimedia. However, Wikimedia is so deep into our systems right now that even projects use it, for example, Wikimedia Commons. So it may be, I mean I would, I would definitely suspect that that community would continue to use Wikimedia and it's its own name right now. So it's not like this is a comprehensive we find every use of Wikimedia and it's removed at this moment. That's not what this is. Right, we're talking about like how the movement identifies itself right now is anchored on Wikimedia and that's what we're reconsidering. Thank you. So I know we are running close but I do want to get a couple of questions in personnel head to quickly. We have some questions around interconnection. Was that one of the concepts that was proposed in the workshops or that was that was created in the workshops or was that a compilation, a combination of concepts. Can you explain how you got from the 23 concepts down to interconnection as the final concept. There was some confusion about that process. Great question. Interconnection itself did not appear in the workshops, but we did have a concept mobile connection. But I think more importantly, the connections is something that we saw as a pattern already in the workshops between the concepts. Many of the concepts talked about connections or collaboration between different people or different parts of this bigger system. And I think that sort of understanding and realization that this is very much what this movement is about how do people connect, how do different ideas meet, how is everything organized, sort of aligns on so many levels. So, yeah, we did sort of see it, but we did not see the word itself in the workshops. In terms of narrowing it down from 23 to this one concept, as we explained in the presentation, we had a process where we reviewed all the concepts together with you and also got more feedback. And again, they highlighted that the movement is not a single thing. It's not many things and it's about how they're connected. So that also further sort of supported what we saw in the workshops. So it was a process that went on in many different ways. And we feel that it represents the meaning of very many, if not all the concepts that came up in the workshop. Great. Thank you. So we have a number of other important questions here to be answered as well, but I know we're running out of time. So what I want to do is take all of the questions just as they were asked across the different channels and post them on the brand network talk page on meta so that everybody can review the questions that were asked. And we can go in and, you know, discuss about them and answer there. So if you are interested in following up on any of these other questions, please find us on the talk page for the brand network on meta where we can continue the discussion. Thank you, Elena. And thank you, everyone. Actually, thank you for taking the time to attend this presentation with us today and contributing in this discussion. Your participation, especially at times like these are really appreciated. I hope to see you all again soon. And yeah, thank you so much and have a great day or night. Goodbye. Thanks.