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
