Dante Alighieri wrote:
Perhaps I missed the relevant discussion, but can someone point me to the place where it was decided that the logo that was voted on should be scrapped in favor of a grey sphere with glyphs?
We voted on a concept. That concept has been greatly refined and polished. More tweaking is still welcome as far as I am concerned (the new version is much better the the original, but it still is missing something....).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
At 12:49 AM 10/15/2003, mav wrote:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Perhaps I missed the relevant discussion, but can someone point me to the place where it was decided that the logo that was voted on should be scrapped in favor of a grey sphere with glyphs?
We voted on a concept. That concept has been greatly refined and polished. More tweaking is still welcome as far as I am concerned (the new version is much better the the original, but it still is missing something....).
With all due respect mav, this is bs. No one voted for the logo that is currently on the 'pedia. I'd like to ask Jimbo to step in at this point and make some sort of decree from on high... this logo thing is getting out of hand.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
With all due respect mav, this is bs. No one voted for the logo that is currently on the 'pedia. I'd like to ask Jimbo to step in at this point and make some sort of decree from on high... this logo thing is getting out of hand.
I'm not sure what I'd decree. My wife asked me the other day "why does the logo keep changing?" I had to admit that I didn't actually know. I just said, "Oh, you know... wikipedia... we like to change things... and there's some kind of vote going on, or revisions or something."
It'd be irresponsible for me to make a decree when I've given up on following the details lately. :-)
But I can make a meta-decree: we need to draw this to some kind of conclusion within the next week or two. And the conclusion, the selected logo, should have been chosen by the process that we've been following, including voting and what-not. And unless someone has a really good case that Erik has done something egregiously contrary to the spirit of voting on the logo, I'll leave it to him to certify the final result. And I think we should have another logo competition of some sort, 2 years hence.
--Jimbo
Dante-
With all due respect mav, this is bs. No one voted for the logo that is currently on the 'pedia. I'd like to ask Jimbo to step in at this point and make some sort of decree from on high... this logo thing is getting out of hand.
At the point the logo was updated, there was virtually unanimous consensus that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in favor, 2 against). This satisfied the condition of the last stage of our contest, namely, optimization by consensus. As in all such consensus discussions, only interested parties participate. If you had looked around on Meta, you would have noticed that these discussions have been going on since Oct 1. What do you think where the variant submissions came from? The variant process was broadly advertised at least on the English Wikipedia.
True, a person was more likely to participate if they disliked the winning logo. But that is the whole point -- those who were not happy with the new logo tried to find ways to improve it. Now it would be nice for those who do not like these improvements to comment.
Most involved persons agree that the Nohat logo has a much cleaner, more refined and logo-like look. It is a logo that you can actually print on a letterhead without making an idiot of yourself when people ask you what "kallo" means (no offense to the artist, who agrees that the logo needed optimization and likes the Nohat variant). It has been our agreement that we would try to find ways to refine the winning logo concept after the contest was closed. This had been decided when it became clear that almost half of the voters on the English Wikipedia strongly disliked the winning logo (enough to vote not to ratify it at all). So what we are trying to do now is, instead of entering more and more stages of voting, find something approaching consensus on the logo.
You get complaints from the consensus folks when you use voting and you get complaints from the voting folks when you use consensus. What I want to know is whether you have any substantial remarks regarding the logo itself -- how to improve it to satisfy your personal aesthetical concerns.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
At the point the logo was updated, there was virtually unanimous consensus that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in favor, 2 against).
This satisfied the condition of the last stage of our contest, namely, optimization by consensus.
Excuse any redundancy, with Erik but: He's exactly right. The process of selecting the PM logo ( if you were there, Dante ) had a problem in that most logos were done by non-professionals with little eye for detail or skill to improve them. As such each "logo" was understood to be an *amateur rendering of a concept -- to have minor modifications later.
Ironically, the improvement process was a bit loose: People took radically different approaches to the PM logo, rather than simply improve upon the original. All useful for generating ideas, though. And Nohat spent a lot of time tweaking it little by little to get a polished and professional look for the final. I did some colorized versions of the PMNH logo here: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants/Stevertigo
As in all such consensus discussions, only interested parties participate.
Not to mention there was a [[meta:Logo feedback]] link on the front page -- after the change was made (until someone took it down). The first NH version a couple days ago was a bit dark, and people gave feedback on that. And it still can use some tweaking! There are some jaggies in the version on wiki now that need to be smoothed over. Versions to be used for other projects/ appications (posters, etc) need to be dealt with independently. Im not sure if Nohat is burned out on it -- he spent a *lot* of time on it -- as did Paul to come up with it (With GNU only software, no less) in the first place.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
At 08:10 AM 10/15/2003, Erik wrote:
At the point the logo was updated, there was virtually unanimous consensus that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in favor, 2 against). This satisfied the condition of the last stage of our contest, namely, optimization by consensus. As in all such consensus discussions, only interested parties participate. If you had looked around on Meta, you would have noticed that these discussions have been going on since Oct 1. What do you think where the variant submissions came from? The variant process was broadly advertised at least on the English Wikipedia.
That's all well and good. There's just one problem. The submission of logos was announced on the main page of the Wikipedia. The voting for logos was announced on the main page of the W. The second round of voting was announced on the main page of the W. The final selection was announced on the main page of the W.
Where was the revision process announced?
I'm sorry if I don't spend as much time on the meta as on the Wikipedia proper, but there wasn't even (as far as I can tell) a single mention on the Wikipedia proper that the logo was actually being CHANGED from the initial winner to the nohat version. I was aware that there was conversation taking place about potential revisions, but frankly, I assumed that we would all be notified when someone was considering taking the drastic step of actually changing the logo live. Working on something is all well and good, but when you post it live to the 'pedia, I think you need something a little more than a consensus of 20 behind it.
I would expect that a simple message to at LEAST the list ( "Hey, we're trying to get consensus on a logo, please come weigh in") or on the VP or on the Main Page. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed.
I'm also a bit offended at the implications that I'm hearing that I must not have really been interested, because I wasn't able to find the discussion. Frankly, I don't spend my entire life on the Wikipedia, and if something is happening in a back corner with no advertisement, I may not find it, even if I care about it.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:28:39 -0700, Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com gave utterance to the following:
At 08:10 AM 10/15/2003, Erik wrote:
At the point the logo was updated, there was virtually unanimous consensus that the Nohat variant was an improvement (20 in favor, 2 against). This satisfied the condition of the last stage of our contest, namely, optimization by consensus. As in all such consensus discussions, only interested parties participate. If you had looked around on Meta, you would have noticed that these discussions have been going on since Oct
What do you think where the variant submissions came from? The variant process was broadly advertised at least on the English Wikipedia.
That's all well and good. There's just one problem. The submission of logos was announced on the main page of the Wikipedia. The voting for logos was announced on the main page of the W. The second round of voting was announced on the main page of the W. The final selection was announced on the main page of the W.
Where was the revision process announced?
On the main page of the Wikipedia. Otherwise I woudn't have found it.