Sam Korn wrote:
On the subject of the recent introduction of Wikimedia's visual identity guidelines [1], I came across several images (one of which I apparently created myself, though I don't remember doing so) which contravene these guidelines. Angela has made a list of these on Meta [2]. Most of these don't seem to be intrinsically harmful to the Foundation's copyright or give the impression that the Foundation endorses any concept or group that it in fact does not.
However, there are some images that do concern me. There are two images created by Cool Cat [3] for a group named the "Counter Vandalism Unit" [4], a group that aims to facilitate and improve vandal fighting. The images are logos for the group. One [5] incorporates the WMF logo, the other [6] the Wikipedia logo.
Cool Cat was given provisional permission by Anthere to use these images before the above guidelines were created. [7]
Correction please.
I did not give any permission at all for use of that logo.
On my talk page, I answered : [1]
Hmmm, an immediate question comes to my mind... where will this bot be active ? Likely on the english wikipedia, or possibly on other wikipedias ? If so, why using the wikimedia foundation logo and not the wikipedia one ? There is no reason to use the foundation logo as the foundation is not involved in this bot activity. I fear it could be perceived wrongly. I myself see no specific problem in having the bot with the wikipedia logo... but since it will appear as a community bot, I think you must get approval from the wikipedia community to use it. The only question left is "where will this bot be active ?" Ant
-------
Later, there was a bit of a conflict on the issue and I was asked to confirm I gave permission. If I remember well, I confirmed I did not give it.
I did not change my mind since then.
-------
Months later, I still think this logo is a bad idea, because it gives the impression the Foundation is supporting the Counter Vandalism Unit. The Foundation supports is entirely irrelevant here. Fighting vandalism is a community issue.
Just a few days ago, a similar logo appeared on the french wikipedia and I must confess, I did a speedy deletion... (on the grounds it received no authorization... a bit borderline :-))
-------
The current guidelines are for the way the logo could appear, not for its internal uses. I think the change you are suggesting would fit in another definition of its use.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Couter_Vandalism_Unit
Ant
However, the Counter Vandalism Unit does have some opposition within the community. I would note that I myself am in disagreement with much of its structure and attitudes, particularly some comments that imply that the Unit is the only way in which to fight vandalism. However, just to avoid any undue comments, I am sending this post not to request removal but just _reappraisal_ of the situation, which I see as potentially harmful.
The logos give the impression that the Unit is Foundation-sanctioned. This idea is encouraged by the proliferation of the Foundation logo attached to Unit-related matters (most notably the infamous userboxes).
With this in mind, may I suggest that the provisional permission granted to Cool Cat be at least reconsidered in light of the new guidelines.
Happy Wikipedia Day!
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_logo_derivatives [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cool_Cat [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU2.PNG [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU2.5.PNG [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CVU2.5.PNG
-- Sam