Re: Logo discussion

I suppose this was meant to be the new voting page.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logo_Vote_Page

If so, it looks like indeed, the process is stopped...

Last decision as far as I can remember was that it would be best that 
projects avoid always picking up logos using the colors of the Foundation.

Now...  I can not help reflect on the discussions of the past few days 
about brands. Erik suggested that we could move toward a centralization 
of names, turned around Wikipedia (eg, Wikipedia books).
Most reactions seem to oppose. At the same time, some argue that 
proposing a name and logo concept clearly refering to Wikipedia or to 
Wikimedia, could strengthen the brand.

I find utterly interesting to see much rejection of the idea of somehow 
a common name... whilst at the same time, all recent logos proposed were 
more or less derivative of Wikipedia (eg Wiktionary) or Wikimedia (eg 
Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Incubator).

Whether we argue that one solution is best or not good for public 
perception, it is interesting to see that those who created and voted 
logos, naturally chose to "look" similar to WMF logo. And that saying 
"please change the colors" basically put a stop to any decision.

I wonder if we might not think about it entirely again...

Ant


Kathy Harris wrote:
> 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