Daniel Arnold wrote:
Benjamin Esham wrote:
The problem with this idea is the "Commons
brand" you mention: compared
to the number of people who are familiar with Wikipedia, there are not
all that many who know what Commons is, and I'm worried that we won't be
doing our branding any good by having two (competing) logos. Imagine how
odd it would be if you saw a page with numerous references to Commons
with one icon, but when you actually visited Commons you started to see
a completely different icon.
Stop stop stop! I am _not_ talking about replacing the official Logo of
Commons you can see in the left of the Commons web site. I am not talking
replacing the official brand. I am talking about a serious inofficial
"Commons community and supporter icon" that anybody can use without formal
agreement. Everyone that thinks he and his own innitative keep the spirit
of our project may use it if he or she likes. So how about a cartoonish
flower icon?
I have looked at [1] a little, and I guess the idea of community logos has
its merits. However, I'm still worried about the confusion that could be
caused by the use of two different logos.
[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos
Aren't all
of these logos copyrighted in the first place because we want
to be able to control their use?
Sure. Aren't wikis dangerous cause anybody can write bullshit into them?
As I see it, each of our wikis consists of two parts: the free content, and
the Wikimedia branding. We want people to reuse the former; that's the
point of the project. We don't want anyone else to use the latter, because
that opens up the potential for abuse of the brand. Such misuses are, I
believe, covered by trademark law, but having the logos copyrighted is an
extra layer of protection.
As Commons
becomes more and more well-known, IMO it's important that we
have one, consistent, WMF-controlled logo (and visual identity in
general).
I particular dislike any corporate identity bullshit. I like usability and
clear consistent design of web pages, printed works and other stuff but
not more. I am not talking about replacing the Commons Logo for offical
authorized activities.
How is the idea of a "corporate identity" different from the consistent
design of published materials, including one consistent logo? The WMF is
not a for-profit corporation, but it would do well to ensure that people can
recognize its services with a minimum of effort—and therefore with a minimum
of confusion.
--
Benjamin D. Esham
E-mail/Jabber: bdesham(a)gmail.com | AIM bdesham128 | PGP D676BB9A
Haurheghaud, ijh hehe einght aghsethe hjij haafhohuhede!