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.