On 6/16/03 6:52 PM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Cunc-
I had written a more useful response which I
accidentally deleted, about how
a more useful discussion of the logo question would not center on
aesthetics, but on what message we want the logo to portray--e.g., the
current one says "Wikipedia is serious, dense, textual, highminded,
comprehensive, global, and perhaps arrogant, dull, confusing, and
Anglocentric."
That's a lot. A lot to disagree with and argue about. And you don't even
talk about Hobbes' message, which, as I said, is certain to be
controversial.
Well, yeah. One thing to remember is that logo != articles. The content of
the entries should aspire to a neutral point of view, not Wikipedia itself.
Lots of people disagree with the GFDL, etc. Wikipedia does have a particular
set of goals.
There's nothing wrong with having a logo that doesn't please everyone, for
the simple reason that it's impossible to make one that does.
The flower one
says "Wikipedia is fun and involves life/growth/the sun". So
it's unsurprising it looks like a logo for a biotech/agritech corporation or
organization, like Monsanto or the EU Eco-label.
Monsanto? These folks would disagree:
http://www.gp.org/
http://www.gruene.de/
http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/
http://www.nhgreens.org/
The Greens have pretty much monopolized the sunflower, that's why I
wouldn't really want to use it, it was just a quick hack.
Yeah. That the logo makes sense for the Green Party supports my point about
its connotations.