[okfn-discuss] Next steps on the Open Knowledge Tagline

Sat Jun 14 17:47:29 UTC 2014

Hi friends,
I think a tagline like 'Knowledge is Freedom' is short and yet tells a lot
about our aims and objectives.
Best Wishes,
Subhajit Ganguly,
Open Knowledge India <http://in.okfn.org>

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Multiple taglines, adapted as needs change, has a definite appeal.  I
> think that if the simple phrase 'Open Knowledge' weren't so expansive, it'd
> be a lot harder to live with the idea of multiple taglines.
>
> The potential community is definitely quite vast, in part because of the
> flexibility of that phrase as a draw.  While I was in San Francisco
> recently for the Long Now space opening, I got a behind the scenes look at
> the Internet Archive.  I was musing on the fact that their mission tagline
> is "Universal access to all knowledge."  Well, that could just as easily be
> an OK motto, as its scope is so vast.  But it's taken.  ;)
>
> The point is that by virtue of setting out on such a far-reaching journey,
> (Open Knowledge), we are bound to find ourselves companions on the road
> with a wide range of fellow travellers.  Sometimes it'll surprise us
> (though it shouldn't) that we're on the same road.  But all kinds of things
> turn out to be necessary aspects of a movement towards open knowledge.
>  (Trust and privacy, net neutrality, openness as a choice freely taken
> rather than a forced mandate, etc.)
>
> In every encounter, we have to speak clearly and stand proudly for what we
> hold true.  The real purpose of any tagline in that moment should simply be
> to identify our common cause, and to open a dialogue.
>
> MLK wrote, in a telegraph to Cesar Chavez in jail:  "Our separate
> struggles are really one."
>
> Until we can achieve such clarity, I think we should embrace the strength
> of our name as it stands, and then seek out those words of clear dialogue
> as the opportunities arise.
>
> So yes, multiple taglines do not necessarily have to equate with
> indecision.  There's just a lot to decide, together, over time.
>
> - Heath
>
>
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While everyone has their opinions, if the tag-line that had been
>> originally chosen without so much input had been an actual call-to-action,
>> something actually decent, people might not have bothered complaining.
>>
>> I think "see how data can change the world" is clearly *disliked* by
>> lots (perhaps most) of us, the thing I've found most troubling is that it
>> wasn't scrapped.
>>
>> I have some experience with this sort of process, and I can tell you
>> this: it is extremely hard to find something everyone likes. The goal needs
>> to instead be to find something that *nobody* hates (and hopefully most
>> people like). The only reason "see how data can change the world" seems to
>> have been included in the running is because it was already there and some
>> people had early prejudice for it. Whether we end up with a main tagline or
>> 3-5 or whatever, "see how" needs to be *omitted.* It's been pointed out
>> by multiple people how passive, distancing, topic-centric, and unclear it
>> is. It doesn't qualify for "nobody hates it" status even if we hesitate to
>> use the word "hate".
>>
>> We can go through the rest and figure out if any options nobody hates.
>> Those are the ones we can move forward with. And I'm not saying just give
>> in to haters, but when reasonable people express things that aren't "it's
>> too fluffy, or it's too chunky" but really express true dislike with
>> explanations and persistence, *then* we *need* to drop the item in
>> question.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Aaron
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Wolf
>> wolftune.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniela,
>>>
>>> On 14 June 2014 12:43, Daniela Mattern <daniela.mattern at okfn.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, my suggestion is: Why can't we just have a set of taglines (3-5)
>>>> that we endorse as Open Knowledge and people can select the one, they most
>>>> identify with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Personally* I think that's a great idea; it allows folks to pick the
>>> phrase they feel most strongly about, and/or that they think will work best
>>> for the audience they have. In fact, that's sort of what is happening at
>>> the moment :) folks are using different phrases, as they need to (in email
>>> signatures, T shirts, etc). To make this work well we'd need to have an
>>> agreed shortlist which people can easily find to select phrases from, and
>>> potentially as Heath suggested, modify those phrases if appropriate too (eg
>>> for those working in a specific country or topic).
>>>
>>> One of the big learnings for me in the first half of this year has been
>>> that the open knowledge community is *even more* diverse than I had
>>> understood before. Of course, with the range of local and working groups
>>> and activities and projects, it's been clear for years that there was a
>>> wide range of things, but the evident challenge in coming up with a short
>>> shared statement has really highlighted this even more. I had thought that
>>> with input from the community survey, a series of interviews and workshops,
>>> and some skilled synthesis, we could have come up with a single phrase of
>>> words about open knowledge that would work 'well enough' for most folks,
>>> and I was wrong.
>>>
>>> I feel that at this point, we should perhaps park the idea of a single
>>> tagline, and instead as you suggest agree a short list of lines for people
>>> to choose from. Folks could decide within their own groups/organisations if
>>> they, as a group want to stick to just one or two of those lines, or use
>>> the full range. For instance, a Chapter might pick a single phrase which
>>> works well for their work and local community.
>>>
>>> The exploration of what beliefs and vision we all share will be easier
>>> and richer in the context of longer texts than a tagline. I'm hopeful that
>>> the manifesto idea might be one part of that :)
>>>
>>> In order to find these we should have a list of suggestions and then a
>>>> voting process - probably multiple rounds of voting. OKF Finland has a lot
>>>> of experience on how to organize group decision making, so maybe Joonas or
>>>> Jaakko can help. Before this, we should encourage people to contribute with
>>>> suggestions - not only on this list, but have an at least one month process
>>>> after which Working Groups, Chapters, Local Groups, and individuals come up
>>>> with an idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I should note that the working-group and local-group coordination lists
>>> were asked to contribute ideas etc on the tagline page on the wiki quite a
>>> few weeks ago now, so I hope we've gathered their input a bit; but I don't
>>> think that Rufus's email at the start of the thread went out to them yet,
>>> so we should make sure that we include these key lists in whatever is
>>> happening now/next.
>>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Heath Rezabek  //  labs.vessel.cc
> Icarus Interstellar  /  FarMaker Design Corps  //  icarusinterstellar.org
> Open Knowledge Foundation  /  Texas Ambassador for the OKFn  //  okfn.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140614/9a700c96/attachment-0002.html>