I'm not so sure, actually. The W thing blows my brain. "Let's take the WIkipedia wordmark, the strongest branding we have, take the distinctive W, change the font to the same one used by Wordpress, and then drop the rest of the mark." I have no idea where that came from. Then, once you get into the meat of it, it's just another firm who didn't really do any research into what our product is, does, or how it works. They change the meaning of "History" to be your browsing history (though there's a link to the revision history from the edit mode). There's no language selectors and they do their best to *bury* language selection on www.wikipedia.org. It's just a mess, really. And strangely US-centric, for them being a firm in Lithuania. On Aug 7, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Howie Fung <hfung(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: --- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

While not quite the same font, the similarities between the "W" they used and the WordPress "W" are pretty noticeable. Also, their product cluster logo (the colored lines) is completely arbitrary, and I don't think conveys a clear message. Branding issues aside, there are definitely a few things I like about their redesign, though frankly most would be best suited as optional extensions that could be considered for addition: - Iconography for core functional tabs. Some of their icons make no sense, but in principal, I like the idea. - Highlighting/Quoting - Concept maps Thanks for posting this, it's definitely interesting to see how others would redesign the site. Nabil