-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'd like to propose the following page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/refresh be opened for arguments and vote on it start in a weeks time.
I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well.
Cary
Goes to the question of who determines the logo to be used, doesn't it? If the meta vote approves the new logo, but a vote on en.wikt does not, which is binding? Can meta participants vote to change any logo?
Nathan
Of course Meta participants can vote; Wiktionary isn't solely "owned" by the people who most actively use it. It's a Wikimedia project, first and foremost. I generally expect most people who use Meta to respectfully give weight to the Wiktionarians, however, and not just "vote" on impulse. Most of us do that.
And to ensure that we have Wiktionarian participation, this is where "advertising" comes in. It should be promoted on the Village Pumps and mailing lists, as well as on IRC. I don't think there's much more we can do. If people don't pay attention to any of those, then I can't see how much interest they actually have in their community. (of course, one could also put it up in the Sitenotice).
Cary
Hoi, With the refusal of the logo by many wiktionaries, a precedent was set. The basis for this precedent is very much based on the autonomy of the individual projects. For the Wiktionaries there have been several moments where proposals failed because the perceived need for collaboration by some projects was not shared by all projects.
When I read what is proposed, the impression is given that a process will start with a compulsory outcome. I understand the rationale for one shared logo and favicon. The problem is that it is people outside of Wiktionary that want to improve the Wiktionary "brand" and the last time it was very much these outsiders that made the selection.
The result is known.
I am in favour of having this matter resolved. Putting time constraints on this issue is not a good thing. The first thing I would do is inform that this is a matter that needs to be resolved. Have the Wiktionarians discuss this for some time and have them define and commit to a timeline. We have all the time in the world. If it takes an extra month, two, three it takes another month two three. What you want is a resolution and you have to get it from the Wiktionarians. Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/25 Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'd like to propose the following page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/refresh be opened for arguments and vote on it start in a weeks time.
I'd also like considerable help in advertising it throughout the projects and managing the page, as well.
Cary
Goes to the question of who determines the logo to be used, doesn't it? If the meta vote approves the new logo, but a vote on en.wikt does not, which is binding? Can meta participants vote to change any logo?
Nathan
Of course Meta participants can vote; Wiktionary isn't solely "owned" by the people who most actively use it. It's a Wikimedia project, first and foremost. I generally expect most people who use Meta to respectfully give weight to the Wiktionarians, however, and not just "vote" on impulse. Most of us do that.
And to ensure that we have Wiktionarian participation, this is where "advertising" comes in. It should be promoted on the Village Pumps and mailing lists, as well as on IRC. I don't think there's much more we can do. If people don't pay attention to any of those, then I can't see how much interest they actually have in their community. (of course, one could also put it up in the Sitenotice).
Cary -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFJymFJyQg4JSymDYkRAsUhAKCMUeHVDmuArHKlBtVJGrKtHnqO0ACfSUqu 4TB55U5u0N1/Q9Zdh1+N/iw= =RkE4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When I read what is proposed, the impression is given that a process will start with a compulsory outcome. I understand the rationale for one shared logo and favicon. The problem is that it is people outside of Wiktionary that want to improve the Wiktionary "brand" and the last time it was very much these outsiders that made the selection.
Exactly. Despite the fact that fr.wikt and a few others eventually adopted the logo, the logo debacle was not en.wikt's making. It wasn't a refusal to accept the the outcome of the proposal, it was a reluctance to be dictated to by people who weren't a part of the community. I'm afraid this will be interpreted the same way, if we're proposing to just slap a sitenotice on all the Wiktionaries telling them to discuss a new logo. There needs to be community impetus for the change, so that the meta discussion evolves out of actual community desire for a new logo. We should start at places like en.wikt's [[Wiktionary:Beer parlour]], fr.wikt's [[Wiktionnaire:Wikidémie]], and es.wikt's [[Wikcionario:Café]], not foundation-l.
Dominic
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
With the refusal of the logo by many wiktionaries, a precedent was set.
If a precedent was set then, then it was reversed by the successful Wikibooks logo change: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logo
As should be the case, when that happened it was enforced and all the projects were updated -- if they had no translation, they were given a plane version without any words (this could later be translated and requested on bugzilla). The Wikibooks way is probably the best way to go about it.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Sure - the first part of what I wrote (discussing a conflict of vote outcomes) related specifically to Wiktionary, the second part was more general. Given the status of the logos as marks of the Foundation, can the meta community vote to change any logo?
It's not "the Meta community". If a vote is held on Meta-Wiki in the mainspace (not Meta: space), then it has to do with multiple projects and we use Meta-Wiki because it is the "Wikimedia project coordination wiki". This means that the vote is intended for all communities and they are the ones who vote and discuss.
If not, what is the 'right way' to pursue a logo change - using a staff driven process like this one, where the vote is more confirmatory than determinant?
IMO, the process doesn't need to be staff-*driven*, but they need to be involved and know about the progress of the change. This being said, their input would be valuable and would mean a lot -- if Jay says "no, this isn't going to happen", I think that would either make it so that the proposal wouldn't move forward or people would be less likely to vote in favor of it.
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org