[Wikipedia-l] New logo and further process

[Adam Bishop]

The first runner-up may be simpler, but I find it as ugly as you find the 
winner. I assume others feel the same way, since it didn't win.

Adam Bishop


>From: tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] New logo and further process
>Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:02:46 +0100
>
>
>
>Gutza wrote:
>
>>Richard Grevers wrote:
>>
>>>Yay - months of process and what do we get? The worst result - the logo 
>>>that has the biggest technical problems in terms of reproduction in other 
>>>media. Its greyscale version is incredibly unclear because it is far too 
>>>busy.
>>>You just doubled or tripled the cost of Wikimedia letterhead, folks, so 
>>>everyone who voted for it had better donate extra.
>>
>>
>>Plus it's horrible. No offence to anyone, the thing already won, so it's 
>>not a matter of offending the author anymore, but that logo stinks big 
>>time. If this is democracy in action, imagine running a country this way.
>>
>>Gutza
>>
>>(Before y'all start with me, yes, I had a few logos in the competition 
>>myself, and mine was obviously not chosen, but I would've been happy if we 
>>chose the first runner-up, which is not mine either. That would've been a 
>>logo, and a good one at that IMNSHO. The one we chose is neither good, and 
>>not even a real logo. It's a coloured puzzle ball for Chrissake!)
>
>I am in complete agreement with you!
>It's horrible, it's too complex, and the first runner-up would be much 
>better,
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus