From: Steve Vertigum utilitymuffinresearch2@yahoo.com
"Our" logo was not a community work "Our" logo choice was not a community decision.
I didnt have the strength to read your whole email,
Anthere...
sorry...I...sometimes...am abusing people time in going into details :-(
(its late) but I share some of your sentiments-- in that the "process of elimination" way of doing things-- the Darwinistic voting process as
it
were-- is ultimately entirely anti-thetical to the notion of wiki--which is primarily about collaboration.
There *could have been more emphasis on
collaboration,
there *could have been less of an emphasis on deadline, etc, etc, etc. But monday-morning quarterback is easy (American football reference=after-the-fact etc. ) And theser are things to think about and learn from. Before this whole production .. it hadnt occured to me how unwiki a "voting process" can be, if the wiki collaboration isnt considered. But now its more clear that the collaborative element needs to be enhanced in the future, and that the design of such endeavors and
even
the wiki itself will continue to change to better fit the collaborative ethnic.
Your comment...raise three comments in my mind.
First, reminding that voting results in the satisfaction of the majority. And that always, a significant minority will be dissatisfied with the result. And even if this minority accepts the decision taken, because it the "rule of the game", it will resist actively or try to attenuate the consequences of this decision. And that is why I don't like voting.
Second, reminding that consensus is (imho, at least ideally) a decision process that will lead to a solution ***all*** can accept (live with), even if some would have preferred another solution. It means some people will be happier than others, but that no one will be entirely dissatisfied. That is the deep meaning of "consensus" as majority or "consensus" as unanimity. It does not aim at pleasing everyone, but at being at least acceptable to *everyone*.
Third, that I participated in four logos. One, I made alone, and it did not meet success (admitedly, it was bad). One was on the original idea of another user, who apparently since then is gone. On two logos, I worked from a mascot suggestion of an unknown wikipedian. Then I collaborated with Olie to try to have a stylistic ant. To me, that means these logos were the results of a 4 people input.
The last one is Erik logo, whom I offered the flower from a picture I took in one of our nearby cropfield last June. I did not do much otherwise. Took the picture one sunny day, and extracted it. But, Erik had no "free" picture.
I am no graphist. Neither developper, nor knowledgeable in Communication. I forgot the transparency on one logo.
But, I had fun making these logos, even if specialists would say they are bullshit. And doing them with another person, offering my flower to Erik, each of us all, bringing a different little bit to these logos, gave me a lot of happiness :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com