Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: I concur, "ask Brad". I will also ask a question to Brad. Is that a problem that the logo is so similar to the logo of the Foundation (which seems to breech http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines ?) Anthere

On 31/07/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I disagree with them looking too similar, they are part of a theme. But, in the future, perhaps a member of the board should monitor logo votes to prevent this kind of thing happening? It seems rather silly (and very bureaucratic) that dozens of users have participated in a discussion about the Incubator logo, that several have invested time designing logos, and that dozens have voted, only to be shot down after the completion of the vote (so community selection of the logo) by the Foundation. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 8/1/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: As long as nobody gets the idea to color our lovely Wikipedia puzzle ball in the Wikimedia colors .. ;-) Erik

Oldak Quill wrote: That's debatable. There are good sides and bad sides. I am rather neutral toward the idea of using a "theme". On the "good" side, it may help promote a new project that readers automatically "connect" it with a bigger project they already love and understand (except that the project they love is actually Wikipedia, so they do not connect anything at all). On the "good" side, it may help that it be "connected" with meta. On the "bad" side, we may wonder how the logo of our 15th project will look... it might become a bit confusing to see all these so-similar logos. I like the egg-concept. It may be that always using the same colors might be interpretated as a lack of creativity. BUT *here*, my question was essentially legalistic. Imagine Oldak... that for some reasons the projects (one or several) separate from the Foundation. Do you think it is "legally" wise that a project logo is actually a distorsion of the Foundation logo ? Yes. Which would require board to be informed such a vote is taking place. I mean *really* informed. We can see *something* is going on, but we can not be everywhere and can not follow all discussions. A board member is not the Foundation And a board member is not a rubber stamp http://blog.anthere.org/index.php/2006/07/22/68-tiens-signe-la

Anthere wrote: Since project logos and names are trademarked by the WMF, what would be the difference? I really don't see what the problem would be here for the Incubator logo, as it really is intended to be a service to the Wikimedia projects and is in a way a child of the WMF. Approval for such a project (like this incubator project) should in theory have been before the board before it gets started, which already implies a huge legal connection to the WMF anyway. If a project did decide to go off on its own, do its own fundraising etc., it is likely to be schismatic anyway due to a major policy dispute. In that case, it would simply be a fork of the content and not necessarily a project leaving quietly being "spun-off" as a completely seperate legal entity. Even then, logos would likely need to be changed substantially and perhaps even new project names created. -- Robert Scott Horning