[okfn-discuss] new brand, new website: coming up next week

Rufus Pollock rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Thu Apr 17 17:38:28 UTC 2014

On 15 April 2014 10:34, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

My main concern is that the new brand may be driving the philosophy and
> practice of OKF rather than reflecting it. We've struggled for 10 years to
> try to capture what we are about. Our diversity is part of our strength but
> it's fragile.

Good points Peter. The challenge I think we also have is to make both
ourselves and open knowledge (and open data) more comprehensible to a
broader audience. I’ve been frequently told by semi-newcomers to our
website over the last 2 years that they really struggle to know what we are
about and if / how they should engage. This exercise is most definitely
about trying to capture what we’re about but to do in a way that is also
comprehensible and compelling.

The latest phrase I remember is something like:
> "A community making knowledge open and useful"
> The words aren't quite right but that expresses what I feel about OK. I
> was happy with it. I've also taken part in the current review of the OKF
> and found the 90 minute session very useful. We were able to prioritise and
> the top of my list was "community" combined with the Open Definition.
> I am worried about the use of "data" in the new tagline. "data" is
> impersonal and cold; "knowledge" currently relates to humans and is warm.
> Although it's harder to pin down knowledge it's much more than data
> hacking. (and I say that as a data-weenie).

Moving away from the tagline for a moment, what are your thoughts on the
longer form summary:

A world where knowledge creates power for the many, not the few.
A world where data frees us — to make informed choices about how we live,
what we buy and who gets our vote.
A world where information and insights are accessible — and apparent — to
This is the world we choose.

I’m concerned at the moment that the tagline is over-dominating the
analysis and given its (necessary) brevity may be over-interpreted, so I’m
really keen to get your take on the longer form summary. What do you think?

We have not, and I hope we never will, turn into a data organisation. So
> please can we go back to knowledge?

Let me emphasize that we most definitely have not changed from being a
“knowledge” organisation :-) We are, after all, “Open Knowledge”

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140417/f120b811/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the okfn-discuss mailing list