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]
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
As a former "CVU Director" (a title which bears no real authority, outside high access in the CVU IRC channel) and the creator of the original images (they have since been reconditioned), I must object to this. There are many, many derivatives of the Foundation logos that have been created for various different groups (I myself am responsible for quite a few, I admit), and very few of these have received any objection. When I created my first derivative, the "Admin mop", I went to Angela to determine what should be done to get it approved; she passed it on to the other board members, received no objection, and noted the same on the image page. In the course of gettting that image "approved", we discussed what terms applied to such images (use onwiki only, copyright to the foundation, images in good taste, etc). I believe that as long as the derivatives do not defame the founation, Wikipedians should have free reign to create derivatives of the logos for use on Wikimedia projects.
Perhaps an informal review process should be instituted, something along the lines of a "derivative review committee" that could quickly review the images, insure they do not pose a threat to the foundation, and "certify" them as safe for use on projects. I myself would be willing to serve on such a committee; images could be uploaded to commons with a {{proposed logo derivative}} tag, listed on a Meta page, where the committee members (which should probably include at least one of our "legal mavens") could review them and issue a quick decision, replacing the proposed tag with an {{approved logo derivative}} tag that would make it clear that while the Foundation did not object to the use of the logo on WM projects, it also did not sponsor or sanction the group using the logo (unless of course, they do, in which case, the tag could be altered).
I would also support requiring groups (like the CVU, but also groups like COTW and such) to have a small italicized disclaimer (something similar to the disambig notices that show up on the top of certain pages) saying that they are not sponsored or sanctioned by the Foundation. (In fact, I'll go put such a notice on the CVU page as soon as I finish this email.) I don't think "lacking Foundation sanction" has to mean "forbidden to use the foundation logo", when plenty of other unsanctioned groups are using the logo.
Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
On 1/15/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com 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]
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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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
On 1/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Correction please.
I did not give any permission at all for use of that logo.
My mistake, and I most sincerely apologise. The impression I got was of you saying that there were no objections, which I enterpreted as giving provisional permission. Clearly that was not what you meant.
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.
It seems to me that imposing the logo on some other image would be contravening the "Placement" section [1] of the visual identity guidelines, as it does not have the requisite white space etc. Again, forgive me if I have misenterpreted the guidelines.
Cheers
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 1/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
It seems to me that imposing the logo on some other image would be contravening the "Placement" section [1] of the visual identity guidelines, as it does not have the requisite white space etc. Again, forgive me if I have misenterpreted the guidelines.
You are actually correct Sam...
/me wonders if we could have a case here...
ant
Cheers
-- Sam
I'd suggest waiting a couple of weeks for any formal decision on this since we're in the process of forming some new Foundation committees, one of which will be delegated the authority to make this sort of decision.
Angela
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org