Talk:International logo contest/Ratification

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

I won't vote on the ratification of the logo, I haven't voted on the logo at any stage of the at times disorganized voting procedure. I could conceivably care less about the logo. I do however sincerely request that the particular voting procedure and schedule for the final ratification vote are never, never, never again employed. Nor anything too closely resembling it.

I understand fully the timepressures, and object only mildly and on principle to the highly abbreviated schedule. On the matter of a threshold for 10 valid votes to make the vote meaningful I can (if I really try) accept that it not only wasn't intended to manufacture a desired result, but was sincerely intended to address real problems that might arise on wikipedias, where the whole question wouldn't reach the attention of enough potential votes. But still on the whole, the processus is still most vulnerable to ingenious tactics (by either side) in situations where the matter of reaching 10 valid votes is a thing to be doubted.

I am only raising my concern now, so that I should not be accused of raising "principled" arguments after the fact. I will not protest the result of the ratification, but rather support it wholly. But I will not ever support this processus for voting in any matter whatsoever. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 03:35, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Who the hell came up with the idea of this ratification? Who decided on the voting method for it? I don't remeber this being part of the three steps documented. The logo sucks, and so does this extra stage. CGS 11:24, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC).


How many times will we have to vote ? It's enough, know. The winning logo is not the one I wanted, but it's the choice of the wikipedians, so it's adopted. I'm bored by this matter, now. Traroth 13:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I agree, this ratification is silly. The logo got just over 3 in the average vote, so it could conceivably lose in this ratification process. It is not the logo I wanted, so I will vote not to change it. My other complaint is that when this whole process originally started, I thought the whole idea was so that every wikipedia would have the same logo. Now we are letting individual wikipedias opt-out? Althought I don't like the new logo, I would vote yes for it, if there was some guarantee that it would be used on all the wikipedias. I thought that was the whole point, to find an international logo. Dgrant 13:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It says the new logo is on the english site already for demonstration purposes, however, I still see the old one. Dgrant 14:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is up. You have to clear your cache.—Eloquence 15:54, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The voting method is a mess, this ratifciation stage is stupid. I also thought the point of the contest was to choose a logo for every Wikipedia. But nwo it seems that indivudal wikipedia can opt out. We are just going backto stage 1 again, IMO. I don't like the new logo much and its starting to appear that there is conflict in opinons about it. IMO the voting should have be done like this:

Type the logo(s) that you wouldn't mind using:

The one that most ppl dont mind using wins.

- fonzy


Thanks for the constructive feedback. I love it when people write that things are "messy" without pointing out which aspect of things is messy. The ratification was announced in the very first version of International logo vote: "Individual Wikipedias will get an opportunity to hold their own votes on whether they will use the 'official' logo." Everyone had the opportunity to protest against this clause for weeks, but I guess it's too much to ask to actually read the voting instructions before complaining. The point of ratification is to avoid hard feelings of the sort "But, but, we could only vote on the whole set of old logos, and the French Wikipedia has its own logo which is much better than the one you guys decided on, so we want to keep our current one." Whatever you do, people will always complain.—Eloquence 15:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For my own part, I think there is a significant distinction between: "Individual Wikipedias will get an opportunity to hold their own votes on whether they will use the 'official' logo." and proffering a ratification process which the "Individual Wikipedias" must submit to, rather than "hold their own votes". I definitely have no quarrel with the clause.
I don't see the difference. What is the alternative? Have a vote on each 'pedia on whether they want to vote on ratification?—Eloquence 19:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
As I read it the clause was (at the time) intended to mean that the individual pedias would have an individual vote at their own pedia on whether to adopt the logo or not. Just that simple. Not vote on having a ratification process, not vote on any dozen other things, but the simple question of whether they wanted to use the winning logo on their individual pedia. I am sorry if you do not comprehend what I am saying. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 22:07, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If your only problem is that the vote is on Meta and not on the Wikipedias themselves then, frankly, I couldn't care less. Because someone with developer access will have to replace the logos, the present solution is simply more convenient (easier counting).—Eloquence
On a tangent to what you just wrote above... The present solution is not most convenient for those for whom it is intended. At least I would think the convenience of the voters themselves should be paramount, no? There is however a subtle group pressure at work though, that is the voters are seeing what the voting situations are in other wikipedias, and hence will tend to jump on the bandwagon, or "hold their nose and ratify" as it were. In such a situation, on all wikipedias collectively looking over each others shoulders, it certainly isn't an individual vote, but one heavily pressured, both by group pressure, and also lately by someone, who added his vote at the top of the list, even though he did not vote first. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 13:41, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


No, if I really gave a toss about the logo thing, my real problem would be that the situation and requirements under which this decision is being made was impossible to start with. But as I really don't care if we have a steaming pile of brown sausagelike thingys as our logo, what concerns me is the general process of this particular experiment at democracy.
To repeat what I have said above, my major arguments against the form of the ratification vote were the abreviated schedule (which could not be helped, but should be avoided when possible) and the 10 vote threshold for "failing to ratify". Firstly "ratifying" is generally considered to be an act of commission, rather than omission. Here in practise we have the opportunity to reject, which is a slightly different thing. If no votes are cast, the logo is "ratified", which is a curious usage, to put it mildly. I won't detail the oppotunities for gamesmanship this manner of "ratification" affords, because I don't want to give anyone ideas...
But an obvious potential problem which I don't need to hide is a real possibility that we may have the English Wikipedia fail to ratify the logo, but all other pedias ratify it. Another unlikely, but not from first principles unconceivable result might have been that every pedia which had more than 10 votes "fails to ratify" the logo, but those with less than 10 votes would (under the rules as described) than adopt the logo. I am not (merely) playing Advocatus Diabolus here. I repeat that I sincerely think this ratification system should not be repeated. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 03:44, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


And I don't have a serious one with this method either (in the given circumstances), but let's not kid ourselves that this ratification is in compliance with that clause. BTW. "Whatever you do, people will always complain." is a Non Sequitur. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 19:05, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Of course it's in compliance with the clause. And no, the general remark is not a non sequitur -- if I had not started the ratification, some other people would have complained using the argument above.—Eloquence 19:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Saying "Of course" doesn't make it so. The trivial fact that someone would have complained whether you had done "the right thing", or the "wrong thing" does not affect our evaluation of whether what was done was one or the other. That in my mind is the very model of a Non Sequitur. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 22:07, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sometimes there is no clear "right thing" or "wrong thing" because people have different sensibilities.—Eloquence 22:37, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why does ratification happen in meta-wikipedia? Shouldn't adopting a new logo be discussed in each language wikipedia? It sounds like voting of ramificating a new treaty occurs in New York. -- Taku 21:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


You have to be an editing member of the respective Wikipedia (at least 10 edits) to vote (again, you need a userpage on Meta which points to that account).

And accounts on a Wikipedia that are only used for creating interwiki-links? Can the also vote for a wikipedia that the not can read? Giskart Walter 22:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A further question...[edit]

I don't suppose anyone knows what percentage of votes is required for ratification? A simple majority? Super majority? Unanimity? --Dante Alighieri 00:07, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A simple majority.—Eloquence

I think its too early for this-- people are voting based on details. We should emphasize making some actual finished versions before having a ratification. At least we make it clear that this is an ongoing refinement process... Sorry Im late. -Stevertigo 02:50, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

see Final logo variants, (PM logo) secondary logo variants(NC logo, EM logo)

I'm confused. These are my choices in order from first choice to last:

1. A runner-up logo (4d was my favourite, although I'd settle for a different runner-up). 2. The new logo, but a variant. I think it can be improved. 3. The new logo the way it is 4. The old logo

I assume 1. is out of the question, since the "new logo" won the voting, we can't revert to some other logo. So I'm confused if a vote for "yes" on ratification is a vote for 2., 3., or 2. and 3. And I'm confused if a vote for "no" is a vote for 2., 4. or 2. and 4. And then, on the English section, I see a section called "undecided", which makes it even more confusing. Dgrant 08:42, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The current plan is that any modification of the winning logo which reaches consensus can be used in place of the winning version. With the large number of quite distinct variants being uploaded, we may well end up with another voting round on which variant of the logo concept to use -- I'm undecided at this point. If a clear consensus develops, we won't need it.—Eloquence 09:12, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ok, so since I obviously can't vote for my 1. above, in order to choose 2., I have to vote yes right? And by voting yes, it doesn't mean that I want the logo the way it is, it just means that I want some variant of the new logo. Dgrant 14:57, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That is accurate. Please do adjust the text of International logo vote/Ratification if you think this could be made clearer. I must emphasize, however, that at this point it is not decided whether there will be a vote on the final logo variant or whether only consensus-modifications can be used (the latter may limit any changes to the logo to relatively minor modifications). In your ratification vote, you should take into account the possibility that only minor modifications to the logo will be allowed as this was the original idea. I will talk with Paullusmagnus and try to convince him of using as open a process as possible (he is the winner of the logo contest and the associated prizes in any case).—Eloquence 15:55, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have deleted 3 Vote form user, who doesn t exist on www.wikipedia.de, see [[1]] for details. --Nerd it was - *[[User:Peer|Peer Denk]],-> http:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Peer_Denk does not exist) (cur) (last) . . 09:53, 29 Sep 2003 . . Nerd (-[[de:User:Varus|Varus]]->http:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Varus doesn not exist) (cur) (last) . . M 09:49, 29 Sep 2003 . . Nerd (- de:User:Seewolf->http:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Seewolf does not exist)

Ratification doesn's seem to be very easy i think... --Nerd 10:20, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


What is the goal of the ratification if not to express one's opinion of whether one likes the logo or not irrespective of political correctness? Some people have made statements that though they personally don't like the logo, they are going with the majority vote in the previous stage. If one wants to be politically correct why this ratification procedure at all- there was a clear winner in the previous stage. And won't it be an irony then if many feel this way and the final result might not be indicative of the feelings of the majority? I am only raising this issue, that too so late in the voting stage beacuse I have been confused about this. Anyway I have decided to follow my likes/ dislikes[even though I have contributed one not-so- good variant:-)]KRS 13:26, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


It's not very clear if we can still vote for or against the winning logo. The Final logo variants page says the logo ratification process runs in parallel to the logo variants process. Also the current page says "If the English Wikipedia chooses not to ratify the new logo, it will be replaced with the old one again". Is a vote happening somewhere else ? Jay 22:56, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)