On Friday 27 July 2007 20:39:34 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 can only recommend reading a bit about Tux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux
This is an ideal example of a strong community driven icon. There is no doubt
many people abuse it but overall the benefit of this free icon outwheights
this by far.
But if a new logo becomes the commonly-used one,
wouldn't it be prudent for
the Foundation to copyright that one as well?
They simply can't do it even if they wanted. CC-BY and friends cannot be
revoked.
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 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.
However I am realistic: I know that we simply have no chance convincing the
Foundation on the current logos, because simply there are unauthorized people
that try to speak on their behalf. Although I dont like the approach of the
Foundation I acknowledge that they are acting with the best ideals.
Arnomane