Re: Logo discussion

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>
>> What I think Florence is saying is that perhaps we should be thinking
>> about project logos/taglines/names as a joined-up Wikimedia-wide
>> discussion - in contrast to what has been done before. However, there
>> should be nothing stopping the Wikibooks community from reviving the
>> unresolved vote (if that's how the community feel about it), and
>> perhaps, in the process, think through some of the issues that have
>> been raised during this "branding" discussion that the Wikibooks
>> community find compelling for them, and their place within the
>> Wikimedia movement.
>
> What wikibooks doesnt have is a suitable public image, in part I would 
> say because of it's old logo. I had heard a suggestion on foundation-l 
> about creating a common tag-line for all the projects, but perhaps 
> Wikibooks needs a new slogan as well as a shiny new logo. Wikibooks is 
> never going to reach it's potential as a great project with a 
> second-rate logo and no help from the WMF.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth

I disagree that the logo is necessarily a limiting factor on the 
development and progression of Wikibooks as a project, but I would have 
to agree that the current logo is clearly dated and does need to be 
updated to something a little more polished beyond the rough idea that 
Wikibookians came up with nearly four years ago.  And the current 
"slogan" is also in dire need of improvement.

What it really needs right now is for somebody to take on this issue and 
set up the "voting" pages somewhere neutral that would also strongly 
involve Wikibookians on all of the various language editions of 
Wikibooks, not just en.wikibooks.  Unfortunately I don't seem to have 
the drive to get this accomplished at the moment, and it is unfortunate 
that the individuals who were pushing for the development of a new 
Wikibooks logo ran out of steam right before it was necessary for 
projects to actually accept the suggested logo.

Rather than trying to get WMF involvement in the logo selection, we 
should try to find out what went wrong with the logo selection process 
and try to fix those problems for the next round, if we want to go 
there.  Logo guidelines would be recommended, including copyright 
licensing requirements and other such foundation policies related to 
logos.  This kind of help from Florance and WMF board members would be 
useful, although Meta does list this information if you want to dig for 
it.  I don't understand the push to have projects use color schemes 
completely different from the WMF logo, as I think it should actually be 
encouraged for branding purposes, but that is not my call to make here.  
If this is a requirement (to use a different color scheme), we should 
stick with it.

One of the major complaints regarding the logo selection process on the 
last round was that the active Wikibookians involved with content 
development were largely not involved with the logo selection on Meta.  
As a result, reception of the logo met with luke-warm recognition when 
the issue was even brought up for use to out right hostility.  If you 
can't convince those who are going to be using the logo that it should 
be used, I don't see what the point of the Logo selection process really 
means.
 
I don't think it was a lack of "advertising" that Wikibooks users 
weren't involved with the logo selection, although that certainly is 
something that perhaps could be improved including the use of a site 
notice (aka the text usually used to advertise fundraisers and 
foundation policies).  And to make it obvious to nearly everybody using 
Wikibooks that a logo selection is in progress.

Another huge area of concern was the idea that those making the 
selection of the logo weren't Wikibookians but rather Meta regulars or 
even Wikipedians who have never used Wikibooks except with a casual 
glance through some of the pages linked off of the front page.  This was 
even discussed on Meta to an extent, with a significant number of 
individuals defending the inclusion of a large number of 
non-Wikibookians in the process.  I don't have a strong opinion on 
restricting users on votes for something like this, but any selection 
process that ignores those using the logo is also not going to achieve 
the desired result:  that the logo will actually be used!  I would like 
to hear from others on this list in regards to this point, and is it at 
least possible that potential logos weren't selected because a block of 
individuals indifferent to Wikibooks were involved in its selection?

Something else that perhaps ought to be looked at is the selection 
process of the logo itself.  A multi-round voting process seems to put 
off many individuals except for those who want to get involved, as that 
only encourages those who want to be involved with the political aspect 
of decisions like this.  Several alternate voting suggestions were made 
as well to help try to fix this process, and this is something that 
perhaps ought to be explored in more depth.  I am talking weighted 
voting, instant run-off voting, or something else that can narrow down a 
large field of candidates to just a single selection in just one round 
of voting, and allow room for a compromise selection instead of "the 
best of the worst".

Perhaps even other ideas like a logo selection committee or even 
something more off the wall could be considered instead.... although I 
do think a fiat decision by the WMF board would be a very bad idea.