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

[Rufus Pollock]

On 14 June 2014 16:43, 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".
>

@Aaron: as you point out a lot of people can have different opinions on
this topic. I should say, personally, I see a reasonable amount to
recommend the "See how ..." approach (as Rob Myers points out below). Once
you have "see how" and you can't repeat knowledge (you're going to prefix
with that remember!) you end up with a default choice between data and
information and given the framing of the tagline within "Open Knowledge:
..." and potentially the narrative I think there is much in "See how data
can change the world" - btw I'm not saying there is not much in other
options, i'm just trying to explain why I think this was kept in on its
merits :-)


> 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.
>

I am concerned that some of the original reaction to this *tagline* was an
(important and valuable) reaction to deeper and more complex things than
the tagline - i.e. a sense there was some change in identity or focus.

rufus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140616/b795c95f/attachment-0002.html>