I'd like to know if I'm alone in being quite tired of the current Wikipedia logo (as used on en: and most of the non-English pedias). There are several things I do not like about it:
1) It is a ball of hard to read, monochrome text, with two lines of text under it. Since most of our content is text, it would be nice to have a logo that has at least some pictographic elements. I personally do not find it aesthetically pleasing either. IMHO, the absence of the textball from the Cologne Blue skin is one of the key reasons why many people find it more attractive.
2) The Hobbes citation itself is cute, but too subtle and pretentious; it is also not particularly useful to readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia.
3) It is an English text, making it a bad choice for the international Wikipedias.
4) It cites one specific philosopher and one specific quote, establishing that particular point of view quite securely. While Wikipedia itself is mostly neutral, the logo is clearly not. And just to make clear that its text is far from uncontroversial, the Hobbes quote states that "man is distinguished, not only by his reason, but also by this singular passion [curiosity] from other animals". This is a highly anthropocentric view with the classical animal/human distinction that is increasingly eroded by our understanding of other highly intelligent and curious animals such as chimpanzees, bonobos, whales and dolphins. Of course, that is not to say that a more modern view should be taken; in fact, none should be taken at all.
Wikipedia has thousands of highly creative users, many hundreds more than when Cunctator originally created the logo. I think a logo contest on Meta, officially promoted on all the main pages, could produce very satisfying results: a visually pleasing logo which is international and can therefore be used by all our editions.
Just a few ideas: - an alphabet letter which also looks like a construction site - a green tree with some interesting fruit (letters, pages or something like that) - several book volumes standing next to each other, with an inkwell sitting on the top - a flower or planet within a pair of double square brackets.
But maybe it's just me and everyone else loves the textball. I'd like to hear some feedback on this. Just as a quick demo I have hacked together the last idea from the ones above and put it at
http://www.scireview.de/wiki/Main_Page.html
in the context of the current Main Page. Note that this logo is just a quick hack and I do not suggest that it should actually be used, but I think that the colorful picture looks better than what we have now. Still I admit that I have *no* artistic skills whatsoever. That's why I'd really like to see what could come out of a large logo contest.
Regards,
Erik
On 14 Jun 2003 07:21:00 +0200, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de gave utterance to the following:
I'd like to know if I'm alone in being quite tired of the current Wikipedia logo (as used on en: and most of the non-English pedias). There
are several things I do not like about it:
5) The logo contains the words "carnal pleasure" which may cause some people to want to ban Wikipedia ;-)
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'd like to know if I'm alone in being quite tired of the current Wikipedia logo (as used on en: and most of the non-English pedias). There are several things I do not like about it:
I haven't thought much about the Logo, so I don't have a lot of strong feelings about either keeping or changing it. I can only promise an open mind on the subject. Erik does make some strong arguments for his proposal.
Colour does make it look sharper, but there still needs to be enough contrast for the benefit of those who receive or prefer to receive monochrome downloads.
Wikipedia has thousands of highly creative users, many hundreds more than when Cunctator originally created the logo. I think a logo contest on Meta, officially promoted on all the main pages, could produce very satisfying results: a visually pleasing logo which is international and can therefore be used by all our editions.
Just a few ideas:
- an alphabet letter which also looks like a construction site
That begs the question: From which alphabet? It would be centred too much on one language or group of languages.
- a green tree with some interesting fruit (letters, pages or something
like that)
This may have scalability problems, given the relative sizes of trees and fruits.
- several book volumes standing next to each other, with an inkwell
sitting on the top
"Wikipedia is not paper." Too retro. I think there is a need to incorporate the future formats of knowledge in this kind of logo. Perhaps someone else has an idea about how to include the concept of electronic media into a logo.
- a flower or planet within a pair of double square brackets.
But maybe it's just me and everyone else loves the textball. I'd like to hear some feedback on this.
Even if this doesn't lead anywhere it does merit some consideration
Just as a quick demo I have hacked together the last idea from the ones above and put it at
http://www.scireview.de/wiki/Main_Page.html
in the context of the current Main Page. Note that this logo is just a quick hack and I do not suggest that it should actually be used, but I think that the colorful picture looks better than what we have now. Still I admit that I have *no* artistic skills whatsoever. That's why I'd really like to see what could come out of a large logo contest.
It IS attractive, especially with its use of bright yellow with its suggestion of new life.
Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'd like to know if I'm alone in being quite tired of the current Wikipedia logo (as used on en: and most of the non-English pedias). There are several things I do not like about it:
Further problems with the current logo: * the French pedia has a completely different logo, which (AFAIK) came out of some crossed wires * there are flag variants of it, such as the Danish pedia. We've agreed elsewhere that languages should NOT be identified with flags of countries.
- a flower or planet within a pair of double square brackets.
I REALLY like the sunflower and brackets!!!!!
I would be tempted to suggest we sometimes switch the circular object inside the brackets (like Google plays with its logo too). Switch to a planet earth from time to time, or an eclipsed sun when there is a solar eclipse occurring. (avoid things that represent cultural / religious festivals though ... )
It would be great if at any time EVERY pedia displayed the same logo!
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 01:21, Erik Moeller wrote:
- It cites one specific philosopher and one specific quote, establishing
that particular point of view quite securely. While Wikipedia itself is mostly neutral, the logo is clearly not. And just to make clear that its text is far from uncontroversial, the Hobbes quote states that "man is distinguished, not only by his reason, but also by this singular passion [curiosity] from other animals". This is a highly anthropocentric view with the classical animal/human distinction that is increasingly eroded by our understanding of other highly intelligent and curious animals such as chimpanzees, bonobos, whales and dolphins. Of course, that is not to say that a more modern view should be taken; in fact, none should be taken at all.
Though I of course think that the logo is pretty damn great, I don't have any objection to a better one being created. But I do want to respond to the mischaracterization above--Moeller misrepresented the quotation with his ellision and use of "[curiosity]".
The quotation actually says:
"this singular passion from other animals, which is a lust in the mind, that by a perseverence of delight in the continual and indefatigable generation of knowledge..."
In other words, it's not curiosity, its knowledge generation. Chimpanzees, bonobos, whales and dolphins may be highly intelligent and curious, but they aren't exactly well known for their propensity to build up troves of literature, music, and scientific research.
Maybe dolphins do have remarkable oral histories by which young dolphins learn the stories of the elders, the physics of the oceanic currents, the biochemistry of sulfur vents, but there isn't any evidence for that.
So I would say that Erik's claim that the quotation is of a controversial nature because of its mistaken anthropocentricism is without merit.
Cunc-
In other words, it's not curiosity, its knowledge generation.
What is knowledge? Hobbes does not refer to written knowledge specifically. I'm sure you will find plenty of people (including myself) who would argue for quite a bit of "knowledge generation" in the animal kingdom.
This discussions leads us nowhere, though -- I'm not trying to make a substantial point regarding whether Hobbes is right or wrong, I'm trying to show that people may disagree with what he had to say, and that it is therefore POV.
Regards,
Erik
On 6/16/03 1:42 PM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Cunc-
In other words, it's not curiosity, its knowledge generation.
What is knowledge? Hobbes does not refer to written knowledge specifically. I'm sure you will find plenty of people (including myself) who would argue for quite a bit of "knowledge generation" in the animal kingdom.
This discussions leads us nowhere, though -- I'm not trying to make a substantial point regarding whether Hobbes is right or wrong, I'm trying to show that people may disagree with what he had to say, and that it is therefore POV.
Ack! That POV acronym is so wretched. I understand what you're trying to do, but misrepresenting what Hobbes said is not the right way to go about it. That's all I was saying.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Erik
On 6/16/03 6:52 PM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@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.
Brad- ^*cough*
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.
I agree. But it should please as many people as reasonably possible within our mission. I don't think the Hobbes logo is optimal in that respect. I do think it served us well for over 2 years.
Yeah. That the logo makes sense for the Green Party supports my point about its connotations.
Monsanto and the Green Party are very different groups, you know ;-)
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Brad- ^*cough*
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.
I agree. But it should please as many people as reasonably possible within our mission. I don't think the Hobbes logo is optimal in that respect. I do think it served us well for over 2 years.
Yeah. That the logo makes sense for the Green
Party supports my point about
its connotations.
Monsanto and the Green Party are very different groups, you know ;-)
Regards,
Erik
I can help you with the point of view of Monsanto, Bayer, Aventis, and Syngenta if necessary :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
The Cunctator wrote:
The flower one says "Wikipedia is fun and involves life/growth/the sun".
Yes!
So it's unsurprising it looks like a logo for a biotech/agritech corporation or organization, like Monsanto or the EU Eco-label.
I rather like the flower logo, in spite of that. I think we do need another logo contest, even if its result is to re-confirm the old logo.
-- Neil
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org