Hi all,
The two largest Wiktionary projects (English and French) have two completely different logos. [1], [2]
The reason for this, from what I understand, is that a vote was taken place about the logo fr.wiktionary currently has, on meta [3]; which the English Wiktionary community chose not to be bound by, because they, as a community, disagreed with the outcome.
I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The "new" logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the "classic" logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version:
fr: new en: classic tr: new vi: new ru: classic (a variation which little resembles the original) io: classic (English version) el: new zh: classic (divergent variation) pl: classic (divergent variation) fi: classic (English version)
As a whole, I seem to remember that Wiktionary is the second most visited site of the Foundation's websites, and I really do think it should be appropriate that the site should reflect a common visual identity, one that the classic logo does a poor job of creating. The new logo, however, met with rather heavy resistance in, at the very least, the English Wiktionary community.
I do, rather strongly, believe that the Wiktionary identity needs to be squared away, having some poll in general inclusive of, yet binding of all Wiktionary projects, and then if that fails, starting the process again, and succeeding to foment an individual logo like the recent successful Wikibooks logo revamp.
Cary
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org [2] http://fr.wiktionary.org [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo
Hi all,
Just wanted to second Cary's note - we talked about it briefly today. A single brand identity for the project would be so much stronger, so I encourage discussion on the matter. I completely appreciate the challenges and how things have evolved up to this point, but it would certainly be worth a deeper discussion and resolution.
Generally speaking we want to ensure all of the brand identities line up across languages. I'm always impressed by the simple and elegant way the project marks get localized in other languages/scripts but still nicely translate with the visual style.
Best,
Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed issue, the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as copyright issues, which characters to use), and the new 'logo' is IMHO the most ugly thing I have ever seen.
Btw.: from alexa.com: Where people go on Wiktionary.org:
- en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% <- old logo - de.wiktionary.org - 12.8% <- old logo - fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% <- new logo - ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% <- old logo - es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% <- old logo - ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% <- old logo - pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% <- old logo - pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% <- old logo - it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% <- new logo - el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% <- new logo
Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo...
Best regards, E.
2009/3/25 Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org
Hi all,
Just wanted to second Cary's note - we talked about it briefly today. A single brand identity for the project would be so much stronger, so I encourage discussion on the matter. I completely appreciate the challenges and how things have evolved up to this point, but it would certainly be worth a deeper discussion and resolution.
Generally speaking we want to ensure all of the brand identities line up across languages. I'm always impressed by the simple and elegant way the project marks get localized in other languages/scripts but still nicely translate with the visual style.
Best,
-- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609
On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
Hi all,
The two largest Wiktionary projects (English and French) have two completely different logos. [1], [2]
The reason for this, from what I understand, is that a vote was taken place about the logo fr.wiktionary currently has, on meta [3]; which the English Wiktionary community chose not to be bound by, because they, as a community, disagreed with the outcome.
I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The "new" logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the "classic" logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version:
fr: new en: classic tr: new vi: new ru: classic (a variation which little resembles the original) io: classic (English version) el: new zh: classic (divergent variation) pl: classic (divergent variation) fi: classic (English version)
As a whole, I seem to remember that Wiktionary is the second most visited site of the Foundation's websites, and I really do think it should be appropriate that the site should reflect a common visual identity, one that the classic logo does a poor job of creating. The new logo, however, met with rather heavy resistance in, at the very least, the English Wiktionary community.
I do, rather strongly, believe that the Wiktionary identity needs to be squared away, having some poll in general inclusive of, yet binding of all Wiktionary projects, and then if that fails, starting the process again, and succeeding to foment an individual logo like the recent successful Wikibooks logo revamp.
Cary
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org [2] http://fr.wiktionary.org [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Elisabeth Anderl wrote:
Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed issue, the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as copyright issues, which characters to use), and the new 'logo' is IMHO the most ugly thing I have ever seen.
Btw.: from alexa.com: Where people go on Wiktionary.org:
- en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% <- old logo
- de.wiktionary.org - 12.8% <- old logo
- fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% <- new logo
- ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% <- old logo
- es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% <- old logo
- ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% <- old logo
- pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% <- old logo
- pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% <- old logo
- it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% <- new logo
- el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% <- new logo
Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo...
I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like Wiktionary because of the logo.
Best regards, E.
Regards,
Yann
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like Wiktionary because of the logo.
Best regards, E.
Regards,
Yann
No, they don't, but since the more trafficked sites are likely to be more complete and with a larger community... You can infer that there are more people for the logo than against it, as demonstrated by which communities use it and which do not.
If there were specific issues with the new logo that remain unaddressed, perhaps the best thing to do is design a new logo that may not have those same problems?
The old logo is owned by the WMF, but the new logo doesn't appear in the Wikimedia Images category on the foundation wiki. Who owns the scrabble-like logo? As a last resort, would the Foundation impose a logo scheme on a project type where the communities couldn't come to consensus?
Last - should be noted that the wikimediafoundation.org site and the www.wiktionary.org use the old 'logo' to represent all Wiktionary projects.
Nathan
You do get me wrong, I am not justifying the old logo, it is not a logo, but the new logo is not accepted by many communities and there is a dispute going on for long time now [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and I do not recommend to force all these communities with something ugly like that after all these failed attempts to get them to accept it. If there would be someone able to design a new one from the scratch, something that looks more serious and not like a kindergarden sign, maybe that might get more projectwide acception.
E.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/logo#Trademark_infringement [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-November/subject.html [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-February/subject.html [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-January/subject.html [5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2006-September/subject.htm...
2009/3/25 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net
Elisabeth Anderl wrote:
Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed issue, the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as
copyright
issues, which characters to use), and the new 'logo' is IMHO the most
ugly
thing I have ever seen.
Btw.: from alexa.com: Where people go on Wiktionary.org:
- en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% <- old logo
- de.wiktionary.org - 12.8% <- old logo
- fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% <- new logo
- ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% <- old logo
- es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% <- old logo
- ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% <- old logo
- pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% <- old logo
- pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% <- old logo
- it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% <- new logo
- el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% <- new logo
Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo...
I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like Wiktionary because of the logo.
Best regards, E.
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'd like to propose the following page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/refresh be opened for arguments and vote on it start in a weeks time.
I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well.
Cary
Elisabeth Anderl wrote:
You do get me wrong, I am not justifying the old logo, it is not a logo, but the new logo is not accepted by many communities and there is a dispute going on for long time now [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and I do not recommend to force all these communities with something ugly like that after all these failed attempts to get them to accept it. If there would be someone able to design a new one from the scratch, something that looks more serious and not like a kindergarden sign, maybe that might get more projectwide acception.
E.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/logo#Trademark_infringement [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-November/subject.html [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-February/subject.html [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2007-January/subject.html [5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/2006-September/subject.htm...
2009/3/25 Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net
Elisabeth Anderl wrote:
Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed issue, the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as
copyright
issues, which characters to use), and the new 'logo' is IMHO the most
ugly
thing I have ever seen.
Btw.: from alexa.com: Where people go on Wiktionary.org:
- en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% <- old logo - de.wiktionary.org -
12.8% <- old logo - fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% <- new logo - ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% <- old logo - es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% <- old logo - ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% <- old logo - pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% <- old logo - pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% <- old logo - it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% <- new logo - el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% <- new logo
Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo...
I didn't take part in the discussion and the vote, but this is a poor attempt to justify the old logo. People do not look at a web site like Wiktionary because of the logo.
Best regards, E.
Regards,
Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'd like to propose the following page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/refresh be opened for arguments and vote on it start in a weeks time.
I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well.
Cary
Goes to the question of who determines the logo to be used, doesn't it? If the meta vote approves the new logo, but a vote on en.wikt does not, which is binding? Can meta participants vote to change any logo?
Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'd like to propose the following page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/refresh be opened for arguments and vote on it start in a weeks time.
I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well.
Cary
Goes to the question of who determines the logo to be used, doesn't it? If the meta vote approves the new logo, but a vote on en.wikt does not, which is binding? Can meta participants vote to change any logo?
Nathan
Of course Meta participants can vote; Wiktionary isn't solely "owned" by the people who most actively use it. It's a Wikimedia project, first and foremost. I generally expect most people who use Meta to respectfully give weight to the Wiktionarians, however, and not just "vote" on impulse. Most of us do that.
And to ensure that we have Wiktionarian participation, this is where "advertising" comes in. It should be promoted on the Village Pumps and mailing lists, as well as on IRC. I don't think there's much more we can do. If people don't pay attention to any of those, then I can't see how much interest they actually have in their community. (of course, one could also put it up in the Sitenotice).
Cary
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Of course Meta participants can vote; Wiktionary isn't solely "owned" by the people who most actively use it. It's a Wikimedia project, first and foremost. I generally expect most people who use Meta to respectfully give weight to the Wiktionarians, however, and not just "vote" on impulse. Most of us do that.
Sure - the first part of what I wrote (discussing a conflict of vote outcomes) related specifically to Wiktionary, the second part was more general. Given the status of the logos as marks of the Foundation, can the meta community vote to change any logo? If not, what is the 'right way' to pursue a logo change - using a staff driven process like this one, where the vote is more confirmatory than determinant?
Nathan
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
With the refusal of the logo by many wiktionaries, a precedent was set.
If a precedent was set then, then it was reversed by the successful Wikibooks logo change: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logo
As should be the case, when that happened it was enforced and all the projects were updated -- if they had no translation, they were given a plane version without any words (this could later be translated and requested on bugzilla). The Wikibooks way is probably the best way to go about it.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Sure - the first part of what I wrote (discussing a conflict of vote outcomes) related specifically to Wiktionary, the second part was more general. Given the status of the logos as marks of the Foundation, can the meta community vote to change any logo?
It's not "the Meta community". If a vote is held on Meta-Wiki in the mainspace (not Meta: space), then it has to do with multiple projects and we use Meta-Wiki because it is the "Wikimedia project coordination wiki". This means that the vote is intended for all communities and they are the ones who vote and discuss.
If not, what is the 'right way' to pursue a logo change - using a staff driven process like this one, where the vote is more confirmatory than determinant?
IMO, the process doesn't need to be staff-*driven*, but they need to be involved and know about the progress of the change. This being said, their input would be valuable and would mean a lot -- if Jay says "no, this isn't going to happen", I think that would either make it so that the proposal wouldn't move forward or people would be less likely to vote in favor of it.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well.
CentralNotice on all wiktionaries? :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Casey Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well.
CentralNotice on all wiktionaries? :-)
When we get the discussion on a firm page and not "refresh" :-)
Cary
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The "new" logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the "classic" logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version:
I agree 100% that there should be a common brand to all Wiktionary projects.
I also understand why the majority of them haven't adopted the proposed logo.
I'm glad that this has been brought to Foundation-l, and wholeheartedly support a reconsideration of this decision with a broader audience—after all, a project's logo affects the overall Wikimedia brand identity, not just those closely involved with that project.
For my money, by the way, I think we should start over.
Austin
I agree with Austin. We cannot just force communities to adopt this new thing. Lets try for a clean start.
________________________________ From: Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:30:08 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The "new" logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the "classic" logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version:
I agree 100% that there should be a common brand to all Wiktionary projects.
I also understand why the majority of them haven't adopted the proposed logo.
I'm glad that this has been brought to Foundation-l, and wholeheartedly support a reconsideration of this decision with a broader audience—after all, a project's logo affects the overall Wikimedia brand identity, not just those closely involved with that project.
For my money, by the way, I think we should start over.
Austin
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org