On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:36:01AM +0300, Gutza wrote:
Richard Grevers wrote:
Yay - months of process and what do we get? The
worst result - the
logo that has the biggest technical problems in terms of reproduction
in other media. Its greyscale version is incredibly unclear because it
is far too busy.
You just doubled or tripled the cost of Wikimedia letterhead, folks,
so everyone who voted for it had better donate extra.
Plus it's horrible. No offence to anyone, the thing already won, so it's
not a matter of offending the author anymore, but that logo stinks big
time. If this is democracy in action, imagine running a country this way.
OK, we've seen voting in action twice - first with article count reform,
now with a logo. And both times with a horrible results. If anyone wasn't
convinced that voting is bad, he can definitely see it now. So can we stop
making decisions this way now ?
Suggestions? If such a significant minority is so dissatisfied with the
results of voting, do you think Jimbo or some board picking a logo would
yield higher levels of satisfaction among wikipedians? In this
particular instance, I personally would've been happier with Jimbo
picking one because I know which one he prefers, but I'm 100% certain
that would've upset quite a lot of "betrayed wikipedians" "appalled by
the acts of dictatorship" etc. And they'd be right, as far as the
WikiWiki community goes.
So, what would you suggest?