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.
First, you are free to make suggestions to improve the logo. Paullusmagnus
has said that he is open to ideas. Different people will perceive the logo
differently because brains work differently. What we see as annoying
clutter is simply ignored by other people's brains.
If the current logo is not ratified by any of the Wikipedias, we could
proceed by letting them vote on whether they want to ratify the runner-up.
However, let's talk about that first when it happens to avoid total chaos.
As for having one common logo, I agree that this would be the best
outcome. I hope that the voters will agree, too. This is basically an
experiment in the Wikipedia constitution -- are individual Wikipedias to
be treated like nations, or like states within a nation? I personally
favor the last option, but in order to accommodate those who seek greater
independence for their Wikipedias, I have chosen to make the ratification
process reflect that. This was also always the initial proposal --
"Individual Wikipedias will get an opportunity to hold their own votes on
whether they will use the 'official' logo." (from [[International logo