Re: Logo Discussion

>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Andrew Whitworth" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:30:17 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Logo discussion
> >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.
>
> I'm just thinking about a PR standpoint. It's going to be easier for
> "real"
> organizations to take our project seriously if we have a professional look
> to us. This requires a good logo, a good slogan, and some kind of
> indication
> that we aren't a rag-tag group of internet losers. I think that we carry
> ourselves very well, but if our logos and slogans and all are trashy, our
> project is going to look like trash by extension. That's been my primary
> motivation behind redesigning the main page, or redesigning the staff
> lounge, or making all sorts of other aesthetic improvements.


This is true, the logo and the main page ARE the first things that any PR
people would look at, what, may I ask, was the reason that the WMF insisted
on a certain set of colors? This, I think, is another good reason to have
the main page set up as it is now, to be more reader-oriented.

>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.
>
> I'm not against doing that kind of thing. I'm busy myself in the next few
> days, but if nobody steps up to this plate, I will.


Its hard for me to think of a neutral place except maybe commons, if (as I
may gather from previous discussions) Meta was not appropriate last time.
But maybe we could try Meta again, this time with a better understanding of
what the WMF wants from the final product, to avoid the whole thing being
turned upside-down on us.

>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.
>
> I'm pretty convinced that "what went wrong" was the WMF enforcing new
> stipulations after the voting was already over. They had a logo all picked
> out and voted on, and then the WMF told us that the colors were wrong.

>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.
>
> This is the fault of the wikibookians, not with those who were voting on
> the
> discussion. We posted notices, on the site notice, on the main page (when
> the site notice was hijacked for Wikimania and fundraising messages), and
> I
> personally posted it on the staff lounge more then once. If wikibookians
> were not part of the discussion, it's because they chose not to
> participate.
> We can't complain if people are given the opportunity, and choose not to
> take it. What I can't speak for, however, are the other languages, I dont
> know how well the logo discussion was advertised to speakers of other
> languages.
>
  >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?
>
> I don't think that we should cast non-wikibookians as second-class
> citizens
> when making votes. All wikimedians want our project to succeed, and all
> wikimedians have to look at our lousy logo on the main pages of the other
> projects. Like I said before, the process would have succeeded if a
> last-minute color change stipulation wasn't made: A logo had already been
> selected.


I think I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a
miscommunication, unless I can see some evidence of such prejudices. And
yes, since we're all part of the same project, people who are not part of
wikibooks can also have their say, though I think it's somewhat unfair if
someone outside the wikibooks community makes the final decision.

-Matt

>Something else that perhaps ought to be looked at is the selection
> >process of the logo itself.
>
> Again, Something that I will look at personally, if nobody beats me to it.
>
> >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.
>
> I'm not asking for a fiat decision, just a hand up out of the hole that
> we've been dug into.  Maybe what we need is some kind of impetus: the WMF
> could set some kind of "deadline", even if it was a soft one, and that
> would
> motivate people to get off their asses and get the job done. Or, the WMF
> could say "we have selected a logo, we want to change the colors. Vote on
> the new colors, and the winner is the new logo of Wikibooks". Even if the
> board never follows up on these statements, it will serve as the
> motivation
> the community needs to finish this mess up.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live
> Hotmail.
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
>