[WikiEN-l] Re: New logo

[David Friedland]

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

> But the Nohat logo doesn't have any *words* on it! No
> matter how many minor modifications are made, it still
> won't have words. Wikipedia is about words, not just
> letters.

Actually, it does have words. The Chinese ideogram represents an entire 
word, not just a letter. Second, Wikipedia is about articles of 
information. Articles of information are made up of sections. Sections 
are made up of paragraphs. Paragraphs are made up of sentences. 
Sentences are made up of words. Words are made up of letters. Words are 
already an abstraction far removed from the articles they represent. Why 
is it so critical that words appear on the logo, and not some other 
level of abstraction? Using the logic that the content of the logo 
should as closely model the Wikipedia as possible, one of the logos that 
had a book in it should be the logo, because words are just a part of 
what makes up Wikipedia. And what about images and sound and other 
multimedia?

Furthermore, the PM logo didn't really have words on it either. It had 
strings of nonsense. Last time I checked, "kallo" wasn't a word. Also, 
the diversity of writing systems and thus languages is much greater on 
the current logo versus the PM one. The main problem most of the people 
had with the PM logo was that it was too busy, and the primary cause of 
that "busy" look was the fact that the words and the edges of the pieces 
intersected, resulting in a mess of lines and letters. Isolating the 
glyphs on the pieces solves that problem.

> PS. About a week and a half ago, I posted some
> complaints about the logo, but my comments were
> deleted by an anon. I'm really mad at him/her, but I
> can't do anything about it.

Complaints don't really help. They just serve to divide and inflame 
without making progress. Like Erik said, if you have suggestions about 
how to improve the logo, then that would be helpful.

- David [[User:Nohat]]

PS This comment was left on m:Talk:Logo feedback
==begin quote==
I was flipping through Wikipedia while looking something up, but the 
logo caught my eye so I flipped back. The unfinished puzzle-sphere of 
typography is one of the best logos I have come across. Clever without 
being overly slick; and not the typically overly simplistic identities 
put forth by un-aesthetic graphic designers. I actually was drawn to 
click on it, and couldn't believe that I was brought to a page where I 
could actually give feedback on something that so absolutely deserves 
praise. Excellent design. (submitted by ricksomething)
==end quote==