[Commons-l] Wikimedia Logos on Commons: Possible Solution

[Benjamin Esham]

Daniel Arnold wrote:

> Benjamin Esham wrote:
> 
> > The problem with this idea is the "Commons brand" you mention: compared
> > to the number of people who are familiar with Wikipedia, there are not
> > all that many who know what Commons is, and I'm worried that we won't be
> > doing our branding any good by having two (competing) logos. Imagine how
> > odd it would be if you saw a page with numerous references to Commons
> > with one icon, but when you actually visited Commons you started to see
> > a completely different icon.
> 
> Stop stop stop! I am _not_ talking about replacing the official Logo of
> Commons you can see in the left of the Commons web site. I am not talking
> replacing the official brand. I am talking about a serious inofficial
> "Commons community and supporter icon" that anybody can use without formal
> agreement. Everyone that thinks he and his own innitative keep the spirit
> of our project may use it if he or she likes. So how about a cartoonish
> flower icon?

I have looked at [1] a little, and I guess the idea of community logos has
its merits.  However, I'm still worried about the confusion that could be
caused by the use of two different logos.

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos

> > Aren't all of these logos copyrighted in the first place because we want
> > to be able to control their use?
> 
> Sure. Aren't wikis dangerous cause anybody can write bullshit into them?

As I see it, each of our wikis consists of two parts: the free content, and
the Wikimedia branding.  We want people to reuse the former; that's the
point of the project.  We don't want anyone else to use the latter, because
that opens up the potential for abuse of the brand.  Such misuses are, I
believe, covered by trademark law, but having the logos copyrighted is an
extra layer of protection.

> > As Commons becomes more and more well-known, IMO it's important that we
> > have one, consistent, WMF-controlled logo (and visual identity in
> > general).
> 
> I particular dislike any corporate identity bullshit. I like usability and
> clear consistent design of web pages, printed works and other stuff but
> not more. I am not talking about replacing the Commons Logo for offical
> authorized activities.

How is the idea of a "corporate identity" different from the consistent
design of published materials, including one consistent logo?  The WMF is
not a for-profit corporation, but it would do well to ensure that people can
recognize its services with a minimum of effort—and therefore with a minimum
of confusion.

-- 
Benjamin D. Esham
E-mail/Jabber: bdesham at gmail.com | AIM bdesham128 | PGP D676BB9A
    Haurheghaud, ijh hehe einght aghsethe hjij haafhohuhede!