>The whole point of this process was to choose a
>logo to represent Wikipedia in all languages.
>There was a VERY lengthy debate about how to
>have a fair voting system.
I completely agree and was a bit broadsided by the very notion when I got back
from my field study. If there is a ratification process, it should be up or
down on the concept and if a super-majority of Wikipedia versions do not
ratify by a set date, then the concept isn't ratified (just like an amendment
to the US Constitution when it is sent to the states for ratification). But
individual Wikipedia versions should not have the option to opt out (just as
individual states do not have the option to opt out of an Amendment).
Wikipedia is one project with many different language versions. Therefore only
one logo is needed.
The concept won on a plurality, so let's work on the winning concept to
improve it so that a majority of Wikipedians can be satisfied with it.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
To vote on the logo, I had to register with Meta. Then I was told that my
vote is invalid unless I have a valid user page on Meta with a link to my
Wikipedia page. ...
Is there a property ownership or literacy requirement too? Perhaps a quiz on
Gimme a friggin' break! I spend enough time erasing this thread from my email
>>>Instead of pointing fingers at people, design flaws and technical
>>>problems like many of us did in a previous thread (me included), I think
>>>we'd better analyze the process and at least learn from this for the future.
>>I'm sure Erik agrees with this.
> So do I.
> Passions ran high I'm afraid. :(
>>I hope that anyone who wasn't thinking of the ratification process in
>>this light will go back and change their vote.
> I still don't understand why this ratification came about --
> *given* that the goal was to have a single logo for all pedias, *why*
> give pedis the choice of opting out? Please could someone explain the
> reasoning behind this.
A long time ago before phase 2 of the voting I wrote and complained to
the list. I said among other things that I didn't think the voting
process answered the most crucial question - "should this logo replace
the current logo?". That question should ofcourse have been asked before
we begun the voting process (eg. "does wikipedia need a new logo?") but
So you could see the "ratification" as the way to answer that question -
"Is the puzzle logo better than the existing one?" and all would be
well. My old request or rather demand would have been answered. But the
question is dilluted by the fact that the current logo competed in the
contest itself, it was automatically placed among the twelve finalists.
Therefore some people could argue that the second phase of the voting
already have answered the question "should this logo replace the current
logo?". Other people argue that phase 2 did NOT answer that question and
the fact that the puzzle sphere won had more to do with other factors.
The story becomes even more complicated by the fact that Erik didn't
mention before phase 2 was over that there would be a "ratification"
vote. More so with Jimbo's statement:
"I'm going to vote now to ratify the logo... not because the logo is my
favorite, but because I want to express support for the process. That
is, I'm voting for the _principle_ that community votes should be
respected in almost all cases."
Everyone agrees with this I hope. BUT everyone does NOT agree that a
majority think the puzzle sphere is better than the existing logo! That
is the most important and still unresolved question. Therefore I will
treat the "ratification" vote as the vote "is the puzzle sphere better
than existing one?" and vote yes. Because *I* think it is. Others will
vote no because they don't think it is better. Hope that explained it.
I lump myself in with the majority that says, "Heck, I'll go with
whatever logo you folks decide upon." I think the current logo looks
quite nice, and I like it. HOWEVER...I think it would be somewhat
more aesthetically pleasing if you added a little bit of white space
between the bottom of the circle and the word WIKIPEDIA.
First Online Church of "Bob"
this one absolutely not meant to be constructive :-)
Just wanted to say that I appreciated very much Ec
list of suggestions made yesterday. I hope it
enlighten the artists :-)
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Why not just leave the puzzle pieces blank entirely? I think the point would
still come across that way.
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Voting versus consensus
>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:41:15 -0700
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>What was missing was a good overview of the pros and cons of each logo.
>>>This has technical reasons -- with the pages already very big and over
>>>130 submissions, discussions had to be relegated to relatively hidden
>>>talk pages. I'm not very happy with this, because I believe in the
>>>principle of *informed* democracy.
>>Yes, I agree entirely with this.
>>I think the winner got so many votes because it incorporates words in many
>>languages, which probably appealed to people because it looks
>>But this excessive text is *exactly* what makes it a terrible logo - it
>>doesn't scale down and the filesize is TOO BIG for the web.
>After reading more about this subject than I care to, and not being
>particularly enthusiastic about the results, I do want to make a
>1. Use the puzzle piece logo (with modifications) as the logo for
> a. Get rid of the meaningless text from the surface of the globe.
> b. In each pussle piece include the 2-letter ISO639-1 code for some
>language, oriented to conform with the position of that piece on the globe.
> These letters can be omitted from scaled down versions of the logo.
> c. The centre puzzle piece should preferably be blank to generically
>represent all the non-Wikipedia projects. The worst thing you could put in
>the centre piece would be "en"
>2. Each project could design its own logo, use the one it already has or
>use a temporary generic logo while it is designing its own.
> a. A key required element of each logo would be a single puzzle peice.
>It would be up to the participants of that project to determine how that
>puzzle piece would be worked into aesthetic conformity with the existing
> b. The puzzle piece would either be blank or contain the 2-letter code
>for that language.
>3. The underlying concept is that Wikimedia brings together the diverse
>puzzle pieces to form a single world. Each project is one piece of that
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
Without drawing any conclusions for future decisionmaking, I'll just
point out that one of the negative side-effects of voting that has
been alleged is that voting encourages partisanship rather than
That is, if we are voting between A and B, then people who are in
favor of A have an incentive to speak badly of B, and people who are
in favor of B have an incentive to speak badly of A. And both have an
incentive to publicly posture in favor of their own candidate,
minimizing the flaws and maximizing the benefits.
A consensus process, though, and I'm talking primarily here about the
wiki process for actually settling on good versions of articles,
encourages people to try to see the best in what the other side is
saying, and to try to incorporate that into their own version, and to
produce a new synthesis that has all the strengths of prior proposals
with none of the weaknesses.
It seems that in the current case, those potential incentive problems
of voting are on display.
Now, as I say, I'm not drawing any conclusions. After all, I can't
think of how a wiki process could create a logo. Perhaps the Gimp
(GNU free image creation program similar to the proprietary PhotoShop)
people could be encouraged to implement collaborative image editing
features, ha ha?
So for decisions like this, voting might be the only way to go.
But, I think it *does* encourage bickering and partisanship, and I
think that's unfortunate.