Talk:Logo selection procedure

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Lessons from Wikivoyage pre Final vote[edit]

I think this process worked reasonably well, given this was the first application, and have some thoughts for improvement in future logo selection:

  1. We had good, productive, and instructive discussion during the submission period, but most(?) voters were not participants in that process, and likely voted without thinking very hard about the issues. In the future, forcing a voter to load the discussion section for the chosen logo before actually casting the vote would help negate this problem. Weighting in favor of users who contributed productively to the discussion might also make sense (especially for a new project, when weighting for existing users is not possible).
  2. We did not frame guidelines for selection and submission in advance. Guidelines "emerged" during discussion of submissions, but submissions may have been better with guidelines, and as above, I don't think most voters read through the many submission discussions. Guidelines that may have been useful: aim for originality, i.e., distinctiveness from other logos, including other WMF project logos; design that harmonizes with project goals in all aspects (color, form, theme, font, etc.); "translatability" into other languages (language-independent); adaptability for multiple project purposes and icon presentations; etc.
  3. Weighting was almost too effective, to the point of making the weighted votes the sole determinant of outcomes. That may have made sense in the case of an existing project, since 50 edits following the very public launch as a WMF project was a low bar to indicate any real interest in the project. Having more complex, multi-tiered weighting might make sense, as would other criteria (like participation in submissions discussion).

Anyone else have thoughts? --Peter Talk 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about this process, and I am uneasy about it in a way I can't yet articulate adequately. I get the feeling that the three votes in order of preference may have diluted or confused the issue in some way. The simple counting of votes does not focus the mind of the participant in the same way as discussion towards a consensus where it is necessary to get a convincing majority support for the chosen logo would have done. Several options have now been discarded, which may eventually have been more generally acceptable than whatever comes out of a majority vote on the three we are now constrained to vote for, and we are at risk of getting a logo which is not the most acceptable for the largest number. I think that the elimination process may have worked differently if it was done in more stages. I fear we may end up with a divisive emblem rather than a rallying point. It would be better to have something that everyone can accept rather than something which is forced on the minority by mere numerical superiority. The process goes against the Wikivoyage culture of consensus. I suppose, in a way, these are much the same points you made above. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Obviously "Wikivoyage culture of consensus" differs by project--I believe DerFussi noted that voting is a standard part of the culture of the German Wikivoyage project, for instance--and nobody has yet come up with a way to deal with the basic disenfranchisement of editors who do not speak the dominant language. I myself would be pretty unhappy if I were asked to sink or swim in a consensus discussion where I don't speak the language.
I can't help but think that there must be something easier to implement than the instant elimination system we used. It took me something in the neighborhood of 9 hours to process, and I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be if there were more participants (say if we were to go for a new Wikipedia logo, where there are hundreds of projects involved).
The weighting did prove extremely powerful, given the relative numbers of Wikivoyagers who cleared the participation bar. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can discuss earlier, but at the end we have to land to a vote, because voting is the base of a democracy. Otherwise, without voting, a lot of people will feel that someone, maybe a minority of people, would prevaricate the majority just with "chatting" even if the decision would be taken in good faith and with the outmost interest for the project.
It's like the legal decision to disqualify some submissions or forcing a change on them. Personally I fully disagree with what they have came out but I accept it as a matter of fact without too much ado, and I think that a lot of people have the same feeling and reaction. --Andyrom75 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The danger with a straight vote is that if the voters are misinformed or have not considered the consequences of the choice they make, they can make a bad choice which is forced on everyone. Consensus based discussion at least allows everyone to point out the potential problems so that the constituency can not remain ignorant so easily. in the end, for a consensus, some concessions are usually neccessary, and there is a better chance of avoiding really bad choices forced on the whole group by a simple majority vote. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree on what you say in the limit that we have two different sessions (like in politics): first open and public discussion (for all the reasons you said), second vote to avoid misunderstanding on the decision.
The concept of a good or bad decision is a personal opinion. I see everyday a lot of bad decision (according to my personal point of view) but if the majority want something, who am I to say all of you are wrong? --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The majority can easily be wrong. Ignorance, misunderstanding, lack of the ability to understand or adherence to beliefs that are contrary to reality have made the majority wrong on many notable occasions in recorded history. I would consider it an obligation to point this out when it happens. Of course doing so is seldom popular and often personally dangerous. In the end it comes down to personal choice. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree on what you say about the history (and I would add also nowadays), but the only way to avoid the majority to decide something is through an oligarchy or worse a dictatorship, so generally speaking at the end I much more prefer the mistakes of a potential ignorant majority instead of a self assuming right position of few people. By the way, I don't see so much ingnorant here around. --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
We are all ignorant of many things. Discussing them can reduce the ignorance on those specific subjects which are under discussion. We are probably more capable of understanding different points of view than average, after all we choose to work on co-operative projects. However, the people who usually assume that they alone are right are more often wrong. Those who do not consider it worth the effort to learn the reasons why other people have a different position are also very often wrong. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Lessons from the finalist review period[edit]

The community review period has felt quite rushed, with just one week to discuss alternate colors, icon tweaks, and alternate fonts. In the future, it might be nice to either extend that timeline, or even better to have a separate typeface vote after the final vote, since that seems to be the last and least decided matter we're getting to in the various submissions. --Peter Talk 17:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Peterfitzgerald:, I agree. I spoke to legal, and they can compress their review a bit since the finalists are all so similar to the designs they're modifications of. I expect it would be uncontroversial for the community if we wanted to extend the finalist review period for a few days. Would it help if instead of Saturday we closed it on Monday? I know it's not a lot but we have that externally imposed deadline we have to meet. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It probably would help (others), but I think I managed to get what I personally wanted done done in a whirlwind of activity over these past couple days. It would be better to have things less hectic in the future, though ;) Hopefully someone else might comment. --Peter Talk 06:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts[edit]

Although we've run through this procedure for the Wikivoyage logo contest, now seems like a very good time to review what worked and what didn't work for future use. Above, you can see some thoughts that were shared already, and these are worth discussing - perhaps in different sections? They may also inspire more questions. :) I'll launch a few. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is that the community's requirements and guidelines for a logo were not thoroughly discussed before ideas began to be submitted; and to the extent that they were discussed, they were not disseminated to the voting community. There is clearly a disconnect, even within the WV community, between those who actively wanted to ape the Meta-Wiki color scheme and those who argued for a unique identity for Wikivoyage. No proposals should have been submitted before that disconnect was addressed and resolved. Unfortunately, the time constraint imposed by the legal issues prohibited having a proper discussion. LtPowers (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not even sure that particular disconnect could have been resolved. In fact, I'm not sure it was so much a "disconnect" as it was just two fundamentally different things that people wanted out of their new logo. There was a pretty sharp divide there, which reflected people's personal preferences. I agree that it would have been nice to have a good discussion about that beforehand, but given how sharp that divide wound up becoming, I'm not even sure that's a matter we could have come to any consensus on, let alone hold up the submission process over. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You could have voted on that issue if no consensus was forthcomingOxyman (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts are that a basic concept should have been chosen before fine tuning was carried out, as it was there was voting on variations of 3 different concepts, too much discussing how a logo would look in a 8px or 16px icon, and what type of font should be used. It would be preferable to decide a logo and then consider these details Oxyman (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Round 0 - All proposals, Round 1 - Short list (basic shape view), Round 2 - Select #1, basic shape view), Round 3 - Details for #1 (colors, fonts etc). Digr (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Modification discussion[edit]

As Peter Fitzgerald noted above, the modification period for the community seems to me that it should be extended. We don't want to extend it so long that people lose interest, but we also don't want to push it so that good ideas don't get considered. Would extending this to two weeks, perhaps opening up the "support for inclusion period" after one, make sense? Or is that too complex? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting method[edit]

Preferential voting, as was executed here, is better than single-vote systems, but as Maggie found out, it's extremely complicated to tally and evaluate the results. Far better would have been the method used on most previous WM logo contests: simple approval voting. You either approve of a selection or disapprove, and the one with the most approvals wins. It's simple, and it works better than preferential voting because it eliminates the ability to game the system by withholding a vote from a preferred option in order to insure a hated option loses. LtPowers (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand how this system gaming would work, LtPowers. :) Can you explain? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's more obvious when only one vote is allowed, but there's nothing about allowing three choices that removes the problem -- it only reduces it. In the classic one-person-one-vote, winner-take-all system, if there are three candidates, and I like A fine, would prefer B, but hate C... but B is garnering minimal support and has no chance to win... then it's in my interest to vote for A, even though A is not my preferred candidate, because it's the best way to keep C from winning.
Now, granted, with the ability to vote more than once, I can rank B first and then A second, and not vote for C at all, so in that respect preferential voting is an improvement. But say there were nine candidates and three votes per voter; if allocating one of my three votes to a mildly favored candidate holds the possibility of better preventing a hated candidate from winning, then I may have to refrain from voting for a candidate I like better. That's non-ideal, and produces the effect that candidates that are perceived to have no chance of winning indeed end up with no chance of winning, even if they would in reality by acceptable to a majority of voters.
-- LtPowers (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
So if I'm following you, you would suggest essentially eliminating the vote cap and making all votes equal in weight - so you can vote for 8 of the 9 candidates, if you want, and each of your 8 votes counts equally. What would you do in the event of a tie? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're following correctly; Wikipedia articles are at w:Instant-runoff voting and w:Approval voting. I don't know the answer to your last question; has it ever come up in previous logo discussions? LtPowers (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

Should this be moved to 'Wikivoyage/Logo selection procedure' or something similar with 'Wikivoyage' in the name? John Vandenberg (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a process intended to be used for any logo selection. Wikivoyage was just its trial run. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh; sorry for not noticing that. IMO the page should previous (adhoc?) procedures used in the past, and that this new procedure has been (successfully?) used once now. Is this process similar to the Wikivoyage logo v1 selection? John Vandenberg (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Very likely, although after all these months it would be difficult for me to specify what bit came from where. :) This process was based on previous community processes for selecting logos and on the Commons processes for image contests. Their randomized display, for instance, helps ward against selection bias. Some of the other changes implemented here were in response to concerns about the ability of non-English speaking contributors to take part. An additional section on the history of logo selection seems like it should be appropriate. :) I don't have a lot of insight into it, though, as I have never been concerned with a logo selection procedure in any meaningful way prior to this one. I'm sure back in the day there were some biggies. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Logo for wikivoyge - greek[edit]

Hi! I have translate the wiki-voyage logo to greek. Can I upload it? Thanks --Κωνσταντίνος13 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, Κωνσταντίνος13! That would be great. :) I believe the proper place to do that is at commons:File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-el.png. If you upload it, can you please drop me an email at mdennis at wikimedia.org? I'll make sure it is placed. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I upload it, and i send you a e-mail Template:Sm --Κωνσταντίνος13 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)