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.