Re: Logo discussion

Please, can we at least go back and start the voting process again?  A new
logo would be very nice.

-Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Whitworth [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 4:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Logo discussion

>I think it would be a damage to Wikibooks brand when different language 
>editions would introduce different logos. We have to make decision 
>together.

I would agree to that, in theory. I disagree in general because the various 
language projects have little interaction, have different user bases (in 
general), and have different target markets. If the different projects have 
different logos, few people will notice. The most important thing is the 
logo that appears at www.wikibooks.org.

>Looking at Wiktionary case, which has similar logo vote at the same time as

>us, they seem to be in similar situation. The logo has been chosen but no 
>one is eager to replace the old one. My personal view is that both 
>communities - Wiktionary's and Wikibooks' - have decided to simply ignore 
>results of the vote as they feel this hasn't been their vote. People having

>nothing to do with these projects were leading discussion on new logo and 
>voted for it.

I'm eager to replace the old one, we all should be. It's not that we are 
ignoring the vote, because at the end of the day it isn't really our 
decision: The change will be implemented by the developers or whoever does 
it, whether our community really wants it or not. The old logo is trash, and

I think we should all be jumping at the opportunity to replace it.

>Personally I find chosen logo a peace of rubbish, complete amateurish work 
>and a complete mistake, having nothing to do with a professional logo. It 
>looks like it was drawn by a child with crayons. If you compare it with 
>logos of Commons, Wikipedia or Wikisource, it becomes clear that new logo 
>does not represent the same level; it's in kindergarten of logo making.

I disagree with this entirely, the new logo is sleek and professional. The 
old logo was drawn with the crayons, and drawn without too much thought 
about the project or it's possibilities. Is it the absolute best logo we 
could ever have? maybe not. Is it better then the current logo? absolutely.

>Beyond my personal looks: it's not fair to change rules during the game. 
>People have chosen certain design: with Wikimedia colours. After changing 
>colour version, the logo became another design; thus, the vote should start

>again. Currently the status quo shows: practically no one is interested in 
>introducing new logo. New logo is defunct, has not gain acceptance and the 
>vote should start again. With more serious candidates.

The status quo only shows that people are confused. You are right, the rules

of the vote weren't followed to the letter and there is a good reason why 
they were not followed (because the WMF wanted us to change the colors). 
People were confused, nobody provided clarification, and we didnt move to 
the next stage because we dont know what stage to go to next. That's why I'm

asking Anthere about this now, because i feel that she can provide that 
clarification and get the process moving again.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migratio
n_HM_mini_2G_0507