[Wikipedia-l] Logo, third voting phase

[Anthere]

From: Steve Vertigum
<utilitymuffinresearch2 at yahoo.com>
>> "Our" logo was not a community work
>> "Our" logo choice was not a community decision. 

>I didnt have the strength to read your whole email,
Anthere...

sorry...I...sometimes...am abusing people time in
going into details :-(

>(its late) but I share some of your
>sentiments-- in that the "process of elimination" way
>of doing things-- the Darwinistic voting process as
it
>were-- is ultimately entirely anti-thetical to the
>notion of wiki--which is primarily about
>collaboration.

>There *could have been more emphasis on
collaboration,
>there *could have been less of an emphasis on
>deadline, etc, etc, etc.  But monday-morning
>quarterback is easy (American football
>reference=after-the-fact etc. ) And theser are things
>to think about and learn from.  Before this whole
>production  .. it hadnt occured to me how unwiki a
>"voting process" can be, if the wiki collaboration
>isnt considered.  But now its more clear that the
>collaborative element needs to be enhanced in the
>future, and that the design of such endeavors and
even
>the wiki itself will continue to change to better fit
>the collaborative ethnic.

Your comment...raise three comments in my mind.

First, reminding that voting results in the
satisfaction of the majority. And that always, a
significant minority will be dissatisfied with the
result. And even if this minority accepts the decision
taken, because it the "rule of the game", it will
resist actively or try to attenuate the consequences
of this decision. And that is why I don't like voting.

Second, reminding that consensus is (imho, at least
ideally) a decision process that will lead to a
solution ***all*** can accept (live with), even if
some would have preferred another solution. It means
some people will be happier than others, but that no
one will be entirely dissatisfied. That is the deep
meaning of "consensus" as majority or "consensus" as
unanimity. It does not aim at pleasing everyone, but
at being at least acceptable to *everyone*.

Third, that I participated in four logos.
One, I made alone, and it did not meet success
(admitedly, it was bad).
One was on the original idea of another user, who
apparently since then is gone.
On two logos, I worked from a mascot suggestion of an
unknown wikipedian. Then I collaborated with Olie to
try to have a stylistic ant. To me, that means these
logos were the results of a 4 people input.

The last one is Erik logo, whom I offered the flower
from a picture I took in one of our nearby cropfield
last June. I did not do much otherwise. Took the
picture one sunny day, and extracted it. But, Erik had
no "free" picture.

I am no graphist. Neither developper, nor
knowledgeable in Communication. I forgot the
transparency on one logo.

But, I had fun making these logos, even if specialists
would say they are bullshit. And doing them with
another person, offering my flower to Erik, each of us
all, bringing a different little bit to these logos,
gave me a lot of happiness :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com