They are accepting comments at brandproject@wikimedia.org
Here is what I sent them, if anyone wants to follow:
----------------------------
Hello,
I am writing to you regarding the rebranding proposal to use Wikipedia for projects that are not Wikipedia.
In short: please don't. This is a plain example of brand dilution.
The brand has a clear meaning: Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia. The trust and widespread acceptance of the brand comes from this clear association. Wikipedia doesn't stand for the news. Or for the books. Or for pictures. Or for media.
Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia, which is valued as a source of knowledge, and is held to standards and format that other Wikimedia projects don't have to follow. A "Wikipedia article" is an encyclopedia article. It's not a news piece, not a book, not a picture, not a data set, not a dictionary definition, nor any of the other things that Wikimedia projects attain.
By making Wikipedia an umbrella brand for all of those, you kill the brand, plain and simple.
Please value the efforts of all people who made these projects possible, and keep Wikipedia Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
---------------------------
Another option is using the talk page [1].
If you also think that Wikipedia should only stand for the encyclopedia, make your voice heard by either of the means.
There is also an RfC on the matter with a majority of voting editors opposing the change proposed.[1]
Considering that the WMF has allocated $800k for rebranding efforts for this year,[2] and has already signed a contract with Snøhetta,[3][4] all with no consent from the community, I wonder how willing they would be to walk back on their position.
Here is what I sent them, if anyone wants to follow:
----------------------------
Hello,
I am writing to you regarding the rebranding proposal to use Wikipedia for projects that are not Wikipedia.
In short: please don't. This is a plain example of brand dilution.
The brand has a clear meaning: Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia. The trust and widespread acceptance of the brand comes from this clear association. Wikipedia doesn't stand for the news. Or for the books. Or for pictures. Or for media.
Wikipedia stands for an encyclopedia, which is valued as a source of knowledge, and is held to standards and format that other Wikimedia projects don't have to follow. A "Wikipedia article" is an encyclopedia article. It's not a news piece, not a book, not a picture, not a data set, not a dictionary definition, nor any of the other things that Wikimedia projects attain.
By making Wikipedia an umbrella brand for all of those, you kill the brand, plain and simple.
Please value the efforts of all people who made these projects possible, and keep Wikipedia Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
---------------------------
Another option is using the talk page [1].
If you also think that Wikipedia should only stand for the encyclopedia, make your voice heard by either of the means.
[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedi...