[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Research Team logo [was: Getting started]

[Aphaia]

On 6/21/05, Ilya Haykinson <haykinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/05, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Honestly I can't figure an organisation which [sic] department or internal
> > team has [sic]  their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself.
> > ...
> 
> I absolutely love the logo. It gives the people who discuss research
> topics or some sense of community, while keeping it very closely bound
> to Wikimedia. 

I don't say the people belong to the network feel it wrong. Or I dare
say, the problem would arise, when the are too much fond of it, their
"own" logo rather than the logo project entirely.

> Indeed, if you read Peopleware by Tom DeMarco (a seminal
> book on people and team management), he describes an incredibly
> successful team at a major company (IBM?) that formed its own identity
> -- dressed alike, had a jargon, etc -- and was tolerated because they
> did awesome stuff.

You missed the point I'm afraid. I know some argument culture develops
within a company and how it helps to build their integrity, but it is
not the department logo (it could be a brand logo, but we don't sell a
mainframe to anyone), but the company logo. For now, applying to our
case, the logo we share is Wikimedia logo, not logos of each team. And
the worse, the current logo has visible no sign of relevance to
Wikimedia logo.

> With thousands of wikimedians, having a subset of them create a sense
> of group (or purpose) identity is well worth the trouble.

You mightn't think so. The team integrity is over the integrity of
project entirely? Even in case it promotes factionalism and gives a
sort of cabalistic accent to the team?

Sorry, perhaps you feel I am characterizing too much, but please
consider, if I recall correctly, research network goes to the outer
world, say, academics and so on, not only a bunch of young
computer-freaks. Shortly sober people. And in my foresight when they
give a look to a member of network, and find a "network" logo, they
won't be able to stop emerging a smile as lovely and temperate as
summer's day,  if I am not wrong, in this point having a logo is not
so a splendid idea.

> Additionally, any designer will tell you that a consistent graphical
> language is important in building and maintaining a brand.

Hiya, now you are thinking "Research Network" as a brand, not the
Wikimedia or each project. But what kind of relevance is between  "a
logo for internal user" and "brand"? Brand is mainly an identity for
external if I recall correctly.  And on my part it is hard to think
your wording a good sign. It seems beyond a sort of noticeboard or
subproject for my accadic view


Greeting from "Babylon", translators' noticeboard
-- 
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com