Talk:International logo contest/Vote instructions

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

Mechanics of voting[edit]

Before the vote gets much underway, would it not be easier to vote by adding a line to THIS page with the list of logos you wish to vote for, eg:

JohnBloggs - 1,17,58,92,77,102,22,33,57,88

This means you don't have to edit lots of big pages, and it's clear that noone has voted for more than ten logos. 19:06, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like having the votes aligned directly with the logo they belong to, and it's somewhat easier to do the final count with the current scheme, so I don't think you save much.—Eloquence 19:09, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I find the suggestion very good, although it spends more time on the final calculation. The thought the large Logo-pages have to be chanced is frightening.

Here i can easily check if i voted and which votes i have given. It keeps traffic just as small. And there you can faster vote than on each page.

Ghostwriter78 19:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Average Voting Debate[edit]

Since I'm kind of late with this and people seem to have missed it on Talk:International logo contest, let me repeat what I said there:

Since average voting is strategically equivalent to approval voting, why don't we use approval voting for all the rounds? What advantage does the more complicated average voting system present? -- AdamRaizen

Average voting allows voters to register different degrees of approval or disapproval, so I fail to see how the two can be equivalent. It allows us to collect the full spectrum of opinions.—Eloquence 21:02, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The two are "strategically equivalent", meaning that if you used your best possible strategy under Average Voting, you would vote 1 or 5 stars for each option, which is equivalent to Approval Voting. So, if everybody were voting strategically, it would not allow us to collect a full spectrum of opinions. (This is not to be an argument for or against a system, just an explanation.) en:user:danKeshet
If you take a look at Article count reform vote, you will notice that the majority of people did not vote strategically on some options. This indicates that what looks like "strategic voting" on other options may actually reflect the qualitative heterogeneity of the proposals.—Eloquence 02:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that, but I'm not surprised. I don't doubt that if we hold an "average vote" for the last stage, very few people will vote strategically, because they have very little riding on it. DanKeshet 04:44, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Saying it is strategically equivalent to approval voting assumes that I actually want a canidate or not with no middle ground. This does not allow the oppertunity to say that I am indiffient to a canidate or have various degrees of like. They are not equililent under real world situations. Jrincayc 22:22, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Your first sentence is a little ambiguous. Saying they are strategically equvialent does not require you to assume that all preferences are binary; on the contrary, it takes into consideration the fact that you may have "middle ground" preferences. On the other hand, saying that they are strategically equivalent does assume that your only goal is to get a particular logo selected and every vote you make is done for the purpose of achieving that goal. This is the part that I don't think is true in the real world; I know that I am personally voting as a way of thanking all the incredible artists who made these great logos. DanKeshet

Obviously there's a practical difference between the methods, I'm just wondering if the added complexity brings enough of a benefit to make it worthwhile. -- AdamRaizen

Condorcet/IRV debate[edit]

Average voting ( ) is one of the most braindead and prone to tactical voting voting systems ever made.

We should be using some better voting method, like

Taw 20:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the real world, we prefer to use voting systems which the majority of people have no problems to understand using. Condorcet voting is for geeks who do not understand that voting systems also need to satisfy the criterion of usability (and that voting systems that do not are among the easiest to cheat for those who do know how the system works and can then suggest voting strategies to people which will have an outcome they desire, but which the people who vote accordingly will not understand). Average voting solves some of the problems of FPP while still being very easy to use. It explicitly allows tactical voting of the type "I will give this option 1 star to reduce the 5 star ratings three people gave it", but that is not a bad thing, as this possibility is very transparently available to everyone who votes. If everyone votes tactically, you end up with a voting system that is better tuned to people's strong approval/disapproval. —Eloquence
Condorcet method is trivial to understand for anyone - you just order your preferences. Don't assume that most people are idiots who can't say that they like X more than Y. Taw 21:13, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
But some choices can't be ordered. You prefer (or don't prefer) two choices in the same amount. Does that then imply averaged ranking (e.g., Choice C is 1st, Choices B and D are 2.5th, Choice A is 4th)? --seav
Condorcet allows you to indicate ties if you want, as in: C>B=D>A -- AdamRaizen
I would think that they both will be as easy to understand. Borda count is easy to understand by anyone. We pick a number of votes (like we have now), and then each person votes that many times, the only difference is you number your votes based on which logo you like the most to which you like the least. In this manner, we could set the number of votes to 10, and then everyone will vote. This would be much more accurate, allowing less room for someone to sway the voting. Of course you can still vote tactically, but with an "average vote" someone could vote the one they like a 5, and all the rest a 1. Once one person does this, so will everyone else, and then the whole vote will be completely worthless. The people voting don't need to know anything else for us to use the Condorcet method for finding the winner. This is b/c the voting method for Borda count and Condorcet method are the same. It is only the way of determining the winner that is different. So, I vote for either Condorcet method or Borda count, but not average voting as described. { MB | マイカル } 21:23, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Semi-serious suggestion. When we have 10 logos left, they should all be reasonably good. So it might be better to find the one that the fewest people dislike, as opposed to the one the most people like. Therefore we could vote them off one at a time, in a reality-TV style. 00:00, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Instant run-off voting, it's much better than average voting. Still, Condorcet seems a bit better. Taw 00:18, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
FWIW, I disagree, strongly. IRV would be a *bad* choice. See the example on en:Instant-runoff voting. A generally well-liked logo could get knocked out in the first few rounds if there weren't enough strong supporters. Average voting or approval voting would be much more likely to get you the condorcet winner. Personally, I think the average voting is great because I think we're unlikely to see much strategic voting anyway. It's just not worth it in a vote for logo. DanKeshet

Refinement of logos before final vote[edit]

I thought the people were going to be able to provide changes/varients/refinement etc. before the second vote? If so, shouldn't it be stated here somewhere? { MB | マイカル } 20:07, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the way we are going about this. I got the impression earlier in the process that people were designing concepts, not finished products. Then once we narrowed the concepts down to a few, the cummunity could go to work on those concepts, to make variations, and refine them, and such, and then once we had a large number of refined, varying version, we would vote on them. As it stands now, we make the appearence that we are voting on finalists for a final vote. I don't see any reason to have a final vote so soon after the vote to norrow down the concepts. I think we should be narrowing the entries down to a few concepts (apparently 10 was unilaterally decided), and then have the community work together to make refined versions of those concepts. JM2C. { MB | マイカル } 22:36, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, maybe we should have a period of one or two weeks before the final voting stage where everyone gets a chance to react to criticisms and prepare their final submissions.—Eloquence 00:22, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vote on voting method for phase 2 moved to International logo contest/Vote on voting method

Voting instructions[edit]

I find the voting instructions very confusing. I don't have a login for Meta.wikipedia. Does this mean my votes are counted as being anonymous unless I open a meta.wikipedia username? And if I type [[en:User:Myusername|Myusername]] into a page to vote, how do the administrators know it was actually me/my Eng Wikipedia account who/which made the vote when it shows up in the logs as coming from nought but an IP address? If people have to register meta.wikipedia usernames, wouldn't a single individual with multiple accounts be able to seriously skew the whole vote? - Confused

Currently we only remove anonymous IP votes, but it is preferable to create an account on meta. Fake accounts cannot realistically be excluded -- each Wikipedia has its own set of accounts, so no Wikipedian is familiar with all usernames. Therefore faking on a small scale is possible. We have to count on the honesty of the participants if we do not want to set the voting requirements too high.—Eloquence 03:35, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
IMO everybody should declare which Wikipedia version they are from. That way people from that Wikipedia would be able to know if the person is an actual Wikipeidan and not a clone of one. --Maveric149 05:36, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Cheating with multiple accounts stays possible. Make lots of it, use them. I could do that, so everybody could do so. And it may be a larger cheat then syggested. Isn't there a way to change it for some time? Till then, I may not going to vote, nor for myself. Ezel Ezel 11:27, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, if you know any way to prevent cheating, let me know. I don't think this is possible without additional technical aid.—Eloquence

If cheating is really a big concern, we should limit the voter to those who edited X times or more within the last Y weeks. That way, people could not just create the multiple account and vote. Verification could take a while, but it is probably doable. Tomos 12:53, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

3 things:

  1. The logo pages were not well prepared before voting was started. Therefore voting will never be fair. For instance, some logo's which could be grouped together as variants of each other were not, and this can skew the voting.
  2. People are continuing to submit quality logo's, so we clearly have not waited enough time to hold voting.
  3. To limit cheating, I suggest we create a standard for voting. My suggestion is that we require everyone vote using a meta account, using ~~~, and that we require that their userpage here on meta have a link to their main account on whatever wikipedia they spend most of their time (unless of course this is where they spend most of their time). This will make things tons easier on the counters, and keep us from having to throw out votes. { MB | マイカル } 15:46, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1) I separated logos which I found very different. The variants of 24 are a bit of a border case, but I think it's reasonable to summarize them. Are there any particular logos which you think could have been grouped together? 2) Obviously you haven't done this kind of contest very often. People will always send in submissions slightly over the deadline -- no matter where you set it. We could wait for 6 months and we would still get some last minute submissions. That has a lot to do with procrastination. We have over 130 logos, many of which are much superior to our current one. There will be an opportunity to refine logos between the two stages. The deadline was already extended once even though there were people who did not want it to be extended. I think complaints about the deadline are therefore moot. 3) This may be a good idea, although perhaps not necessarily a priority for the first voting stage. We can develop this standard between the first and the second stage.—Eloquence 20:18, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
1) I would say that a couple of the logo's from 101-115 should have been combined. 2) You are right, I have never done this before. 3) I can live with that I guess, but the way things are going now still makes me uneasy. { MB | マイカル } 21:36, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
re 1) should have been combined? Of course some of them seem equal but there are also diferent styles. Eloquence did it right by separating my logos. I thought of submitting each different logo under a new style but dont wanted to take to much place for them. Ghostwriter78
Some designers did not adhere to the agreed guidelines. Why are their logos accepted? Many of them obviously keep nothing of content guidelines and of format guidelines . As Example the maximum size was very often exceeded and the Logos contained often the text "The Free Encyclopedia" which should not be there. Ghostwriter78 20:32, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think that in most cases, since these are not final versions, it won't matter. { MB | マイカル } 21:36, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thats right. but the guidelines are made also for submissions. and there is a difference in view if you show a logo small or bigger. i saw some logos wich would look like mine if they where smaller. and maybe only the number above the submission is the really big difference. Ghostwriter78

I suspect that there is some double voting going on. I have seen a number of people voting of just one logo. The thing being that it is just that one logo that people are only voting for. I will be running a script on the results (when the voting is closed) to figure out how many times each person voted. This will aid the counters, b/c they will be able to better judge double votes. This also reminds me, will someone be protecting the pages, or making a seperate copy, when voting ends? Also, will voting end at midnight UTC? { MB | マイカル } 17:13, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can protect the pages when voting is closed. It will close on 20:00 UTC.—Eloquence

The Competition Protection Act is European Law. You'll have to read it yourself, b/c I don't totally uderstand it. { MB | マイカル } 05:03, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

do you have a URI of Competition Protection Act? i would like to read it.Ghostwriter78

Use real designers?[edit]

My suggesstion for next Logo Competition: it should be done by people who have anything to do with design (print,web, other materials). I know WIKI is a Open Community and anyone can edit and help. but users should stay in their profession. some users are in real life designers, consulters etc. and they have most knowlege on design.

i have expirience in webdesign for large enterprises and most of them have marketing staff which doesnt know anything about webdesign. because of that there was everytime a discussion why these design and not the other which the marketing would like to have. the reason was mostly they wanted flashing and crazily moving websites. with sparkling stars and hollywood music in background. sites which would be embarrassing and harmfull for their companies.

my suggestion is not to bar somebody. but a competition with "competent" people in background would be more successfull and advantageous for wikipedias future because there could be a coordinated and professional design.Ghostwriter78 08:23, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Most of the better logos are from design people anyways, so why restrict the competition? -- Tillwe 11:20, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
i mean not to resctrict the competition, but to let a competent jury decide for the best logo. Ghostwriter78
This is ridiculous. Wikipedians should know what they like in a logo. The logo that appeals to the masses is what we want. If we follow the guidelines that I laid out on International logo contest/Vote instructions for judging, then there is no reason we will end up with a badly designed logo. IMO, this is the conceptual phase of the design. The next phase is the refining stage of the design. { MB | マイカル } 16:52, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- well... we actually have logo for the masses. look at 1st place of top20. its a light modified Wikipedia logo. thats not a new logo. 2nd place is a modified logo of a famous company (you know). i think that wikipedia need better logos than suggestions in the 80s style. Ghostwriter78

Seems you have personal preferences and other people have others? Or do you have a problem with the fact that only one of your logos until now is a top-20-logo? (maybe a problem of to many variants?) To the details: 1st is a modified Wikipedia logo. That says something about the quality of the old logo, I think. Why do you think second is a modified company logo? I don't see which one (check also the discussion on the logo page). And the top 10 we have at the moment is not "80s" all over. Some look very 1999 (#126 for example), others end-80s/90s (#129) others classical (#97, I would say), and others (#3, #132, #8) have a totally different look. And at least half of the current top-10 or top-20 look really professional. Where is the problem? -- Tillwe 22:21, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Every one has personal preferences, but i dont have a problem about only one of my logos is a top20. also if none of mine logos would be in top20. i am not expecting any reward for my suggestions, just wanted do see if i can help finding new logo.Ghostwriter78
As always with qualified experts -- whom do you select, and who controls that? -- Tillwe 16:53, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Nobody has to select designers or control. i think a discussion of pro and contras is what they should do. Ghostwriter78
You contradict yourself -- should the "competent jury decide for the best logo" -- or only do a discussion of pros and cons and let the users decide? -- Tillwe 22:06, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
hm. i thought its selfexplaining. my idea was to let the jury discuss AND decide which logo should be the official. i dont want to snub somebody, only to improve our decision procedure. Ghostwriter78

in my expirence as designer and programmer, we first wrote a description of that what we would like to express with the logo. and then search for various things that match our description. after that we decided the font adequate to costumers company (usually it was prescribed by the regulations). this was avoiding us from making hundreds of logos which dont fit. i know now its not really possible to discuss about how it should be (more than size and fileformat). One thing is the personal preference of masses of people, the other is a professional decision which logo would be best for wikipedia, meaning best at modern needs of advertising and become more known. Ghostwriter78 07:48, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Without wanting to enter a p***ing contest here... in my experience as a professional designer, I tend to look first at want the client wants, not tell them what I think they want. No one knows the client's business like the client, so they would know the basic outline. I then go away with a brief and come up with a few different concepts for them to look at. In a lot of cases, the style varies vastly with the different approaches. Sometimes, the client already has a design in mind, or the cleaner or receptionist may have an idea. Just because I get paid to be creative, doesn't mean that other people are not creative and cannot come up with something great.
In this case, the Wikimedia projects are open source, and work only through collaboration. This goes somewhat against the grain for me, as I usually balk at "Design by Commitee". I submitted a few ideas, and got a lot of feedback. At the start, I was trying to take on everyone's suggestions and make everyone happy, or at least show them what they wanted to see. As my time got more and more limited, I couldn't do this anymore, which is unfortunate. Several times, the feedback I got resulted in a better concept than I could have come up with alone, and these ideas are from people who are not professional designers, and some probably couldn't draw anything if you asked them. What they were, however, were people that were part of the community as a whole, and wanted to contribute to it in whatever way they felt.
Having professional designers decide what is good for a community such as this is bordering on elitist and arrogance. I think I'm a pretty good designer, but others (who may be better) might see me as an amateur, and not worthy. Would you risk having your designs thrown out by someone who believed they weren't good enough? I think the fact that you have submitted them for consideration is reason enough for them to be considered. *You* think they are good enough. When it comes down to the voting process, it is then what the community as a whole thinks.
Wikipedia is not a commercial product. It is not trying to gain market share. It survives on the base that the content is good, the content is free, and the people that are behind it. Obviously it's a great thing if more people look to WP than to Brittannica, for example, but that's due to the content. Advertising is normally about using psychological techniques and tricks to make you stand out among the competition. WP is about giving the world a free resource that has content that stands out from the competition.
To finish this huge rant, I vote "NO" to having professional designers culling the entries from their own subjective viewpoints. Let the community decide.
Neolux 19:46, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
i think you misunderstood me. in this case the clients and the designers are the same. of course all users should give their idea. but at first - as you say it too - was it necessary to talk about how the logo should be, not to design first. and although wikipedia is not a commercial project, should it have good logo and design. if it looks not up to date maybe there would come less people to enter new entries. I did not say that i want MY subjective viewpoint to be the right one. Ghostwriter78

Inclusion of current logos[edit]

I included a note re the current logos in the voting formalities, because we need to tie them in in the decision process somewhere (as it was said on the previous logo contest discussion page). There are different ways to do this; what I boldly put into the formalities is that every current logo in use (i.e. en-Wikipedia, fr-Wikipedia, maybe meta?) are placed into the second stage as if they where winners of the first stage, so we will have ten (why that number?) new logos plus three or so old ones.

Another possibility would be to choose a logo regardless of the ones currently used, and then have a stage three decision "This or the old one?".

On another topic: I also would like preference voting for the second stage, gives a much fairer and more democratic picture of the decision, IIRC. -- Tillwe 21:55, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On stage2: Do we include "the current logo" (ie the one on en:), or "the current logos" (ie then one on en:, on fr:, on eo:, on meta?)? -- Tillwe 11:20, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would say all of them. IMO, we should take the 10 winners, and the current logo's, and tell people to refine the ideas. { MB | マイカル } 16:56, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Take into account similarities with other known an already existant logos should be also on of the directives to submit votes.

Voting instructions[edit]

I wonder what about the purpose of the "Voting instructions" (What you should look for while voting). Especially the question "Is it possible to display this logo in three dimensions?" doesn't make sense - YMMV. -- Tillwe 22:09, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I went to vote on the new international logo, but it said I needed to create an account. Can I vote without creating a new account? Can I vote anonymously? Is this extra hurdle going to skew the voting somehow? --Fritzlein 19:38, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's because it is on a different wiki, It has its own user database, like the other languages (fr., de., etc...). Just register the same user ID as here. -- 20:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Getting an account just means making up a username and password. You can use the same one you here. You don't have to give an e-mail address or anything. Compared to how long it'll take to look through all the logos, getting an account will take no time at all. Angela
In case anyone hasn't already noticed, the vote for logo's started today. More information can be found at m:International logo contest. { MB | マイカル } 20:39, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
I haven't read the rules or anything, but why in my own name do you want to change the logo? When I first saw the contest, I thought of participating, but you can't create a logo just like that. It's a thorough process that requires teamwork and alot of effort. In the world of business, the logo is the most important designs ever! When I then find this logo, the one you can see just up in your topleft corner there, I find it extraordinary; it's simple and it gives you a clue about what WikiPedia is all about. Pleasure, according to the last word on the globe there. Brilliant:) - 22:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You better post your opinion somewhere else where it will matter, like somewhere on meta, or the mailing list. { MB | マイカル } 22:24, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)


The current logo should be on the ballot. I like it. 17:06, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

current logo auto-passes first stage. --mrd

Three Dimensions?[edit]

The first bullet point discussing criteria to evaluate is whether the logo can be displayed in three dimensions. Huh? Is this intended for visitors from the future with hologram monitors?

Yes, while it is not required, it would certainly be good if a 3d version of a logo could be made. For animations, and all types of unforseen things, like 3d displays! { MB | マイカル } 04:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Vandalism or Deceit in voting !!![edit]

3 september at 2h33 GMT, the user who's named User:K has exchanged picture and comment link of logo 124 (on International logos (101-125)) by the picture and comment link of the logo 12.

You can verify that with the history page :

I dont know if it is a deceit, but this task give a good voting for logo 12 which could be in top 10.

K user (registered) is also author of logo 119 but never edit another page than International logos (101-125). I check that on this link :

...Needing to check with his IP if he dont use several username.

If an administrator repair logo 124, I think we must move votes, which had gave after 'Thomos', to logo 12. Because this users had seen the logo 12 picture in logo 124 number. Or ask them what they desire : Hémant, JeanMichel,pit

Hémant is a user of french Wikipédia with name fr:Utilisateur:Hémant

Oliezekat 17:44, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. The original image I voted on was this one and it seems to have been replaced since with this one. Good catch Oli! Neolux 17:55, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
not the first time, sigh. Two days ago a logo was also replaced by a contributor. A mistake. Anthere
attend, il y a qlq chose que je ne comprend pas... ce logo est listé dans le top 10 !?!
Le top 20 est correct...zest dailleur en verifiant si ton logo etait toujour 10° que jai remarqué le pb !!!
C'est le logo 124 dont les images ont été remplacés par ceux du 12...chuis archisur de moà là ; je surveille le compteur de ce logo (le 124) depuis le début :op !!! Oliezekat 18:12, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I undo K's edit (replace original picture of logo 124) and move votes of Hémant,

JeanMichel, and pit to logo 12. We will send message to them to confirm that they wanted to vote for logo 12. Oliezekat 18:33, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is not difficult at all to cheat by

  • creating multiple account on meta and vote
  • voting from multiple IPs, pretending to be some other users from en, or other populated wikis who do not vote

So, when voting is a serious thing, we should have some validation procedure, I think. I just wrote down one on my talk page. Tomos 07:36, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We may never know what has happend and who cheated in the voting procedure. It's all in the game as it is said before on this page. Therefore I still did't vote for any logo. Good luck. Ezel 10:17, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

logo on In Memoriam[edit]

Maybe this is obvious, or maybe not.. I think some of the logos are not very suited for In Memoriam wikipedia ( Well, I don't feel I can speak for wikipedians there, and those to whom the site is dedicated. Hope someone active on that wikipedia can make a good decision. Tomos 21:44, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"In Memoriam" isn't a real Wikipedia anyway. It's separate project. Taw 23:47, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Right; it's covered under a logo for Wikimedia, but not for Wikipedia, URL notwithstanding. -- Toby Bartels 01:37, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

non-adoption is an option?[edit]

This version [1] says that there will be a vote on if the chosen logo will be the logo for all wikipedias or if individual language-wikipedias would have an option of adopting its own logo. I reported accordingly to Japanese wikipedians in the past.

But now I do not see explanations that non-adoption is an option.

My understanding is that logo would became a default for all language-wikis, but not a fixture.

And my assumption is that we should take this voting and selection process seriously -- respect the expressed preferenecs of the voters (to the extent they seems to reflect the will of the all wikipedias), and value unity among this diverse wikipedians (to the extent it is achievable). But adoption of a different logo will still be an option, I assume.

Please let me know if anyone has a different take or an objection.

Note: I do not mean to imply that Japanese wikipedians are likely to be unsatisfied by the result. But things are proceeding quick, japanese wikipedia is currently receiving massive newcomers due to a major press coverage, and there is very few (well, virtually only me) who informs others of inter-lingual/project-wide issues. There are other things (like wikimedia's first press release and a half dozen linked pages to be localized/translated) that have to be taken care of. All combined, they are not well-informed or kept updated, I think. Tomos 20:26, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think this will be a good opportunity to decide if we want Wikimedia to act more like a single organization (world government; my preference), or if we want it only to have limited powers over what the individual Wikipedias can or cannot do (United Nations style multinational organization). In the latter case, the logo decision would have to be "ratified" by each Wikipedia; in the former case the outcome of the vote would simply be binding for all Wikipedias. As you probably can see, whatever we decide will likely set a precedent for future similar decisions to come. My preference is for a "world government" type model because I do not believe in the concept of nations and would like Wikimedia to contribute to bringing people, and ideas, closer together. In the case of the logo, I believe it is very useful, and important, for us to share a common identity.
But this is not a decision for me to make -- it is more or less a decision on the "constitution" of Wikimedia, which can be made by Wikimedia founder Jimbo Wales, or, with his authorization, in a separate vote.—Eloquence 21:24, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, the current model is maybe closer to IETF than UN. "Join if you are interested, we are open and consensus-based. But you need English, and we may not wait very long for your input, nor do we offer support to overcome linguistic barriers." The good part of it is that it's bureaucracy-light compared to UN or the world gov't. Downside of it is that it is not quite inclusive. We don't want to see hasty integration provoking some independence movements... Tomos 21:40, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

Main Page link[edit]

The link from the main page has been removed for the contest, but when the second round of voting commences, would we want to let new users vote on the new logo too? or is voting only open to those that already know about the competition? Some regulars to WP may not visit MWP that often, and did not click on the link previously because they didn't want to design the new logo, but they may want to vote on it. Without the link on WP, they may not even be aware that a vote will happen... Neolux 15:24, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There will be a Main Page link (personally I think it should be still there because this phase may well be the most important - optimizing the finalists), but votes by users with less than 10 contribs or no link to an existing account will not be counted.—Eloquence 15:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
With the instruction being "made 10 edits" does this include edits of the same page, user page edits, or actual article contributions only? I haven't contributed to more than 10 articles on WP, so does this mean my vote will be excluded, even if I want to contribute more to the mechanics and the backstage stuff more than the content itself? If it refers to 10 items on the "Users Contributions" then that would include fixing of spelling mistakes, and so forth. Sometimes I've edited a page 2 or 3 times in one hit because I've noticed a spelling mistake, or forgot a comma.
Perhaps if the average voting method were used for the final round, you could take users within a bell curve of edits. Eliminate votes from users that have contributed less than 2SD from the median contributions, and those that have contributed more than 2SD from the median, to get the average set of users... Too many contributions and they may have an overly highly vested interest in the project, and too little, they may just be passing through, without intention of staying or contributing any further.
The voting method looks like it will be almost impossible to get right in respect to fairness, due to the technicalities, and I don't envy the person who makes the final decision as there will almost certainly be a protest no matter which voting method is chosen, and no matter what eligibility criteria is used.
Don't really know why I've put all this here, but it was bugging me and I just wanted to see the feedback. Neolux 15:42, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
With 10 edits I mean 10 legitimate edits, to any page, anywhere. With legitimate I mean stuff other than a comment like "You all suck" or vandalizing pages. It's not really about the level of contribution, it's about evidence that this is a legitimate user and not just a quickly created fake account. If someone goes to the effort to make 10 legitimate edits under a fake account, well, maybe they deserve an extra vote. (Not really, of course, but I think that's a reasonable filter.) All logo contributors are allowed to vote.
I would also like to add that the second, third place etc. have good chances to be used on other Wikimedia projects or even for Wikimedia itself.—Eloquence 15:52, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

logo versions-minor details in final vote[edit]

I dont understand how your running the logo issue. Pallus' logo concept is quite strong-- his choice of which particular version is not the issue. The real issue is picking the best and improving on it. It would be a shame to discredit an award winning poem simply because of errors in punctuation. The wiki way is not about Darwinism -- its about cooperation to make the best product. Yes its cluttered, but other versions (the black and white) are quite excellent. Its a prime example of a great idea being penalised because the conceiver cant implement it artistically -- I can come up with bright ideas, but cant program... Does this mean that the idea itself is not valid, because I personally cant excecute it? Sincerely --戴眩sv 04:41, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to tell me?—Eloquence 05:01, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

I dont have anything "practical" to say. That the notion that you get good product out of a simple do-or die match is flawed. I though the "voting process" to have at least three tiers-- each of them deciding on a narrower concept--each tier becoming increasingly co-operative to produce the best final product-- The clutter on the PM logo is an example--a great idea for a logo (ideas belong to all of us) is stunted by details which are mere afterthoughts. Is this the wiki way? What will produce the best results? --戴眩sv 05:32, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Well, no matter which logo wins (it looks like it will be the puzzle sphere), we can always talk about optimizing that logo. But it will already be used in the form in which it is now.—Eloquence 06:15, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Well, you and I seem now to be on the same page, but are you of a mind to make this clear to the voters?--your low vote on the PM logo (with your comment) indicates a particular and definitive way of thinking (and voting)-- that 'tiny details matter' (to the voting), that 'this (vote) is final', that 'what you see is what you get (to vote on)'--all very very different than "we can always talk." Just in case--please dont feel like this is a personal attack--I only raise the issue because I see the flaw in the process, not the processor. -戴眩sv 06:23, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

A few days after the vote the logo will probably go live on all Wikis; it may even become part of our press release, so it should definitely be suitably "final" for this purpose. I don't think this is the case with Paullusmagnus' logo (he has mostly ignored the clutter criticism), and I don't consider it likely that the necessary changes will be made in consensus soon.—Eloquence 07:45, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

What? "He has mostly ignored the clutter criticism" -largely because of ignorance (Im not sure) -- does this mean that this should cost the rest of us a good logo? What objection could you have to allow for a change to the simple, clear, uncluttered b&w version--since "we can always talk" about making a change. Your statement as it completely discounts any responsibility for fairness and proper process of a process for which you supposedly have high accountablility, can only be described as 'brief'. If you dont object, I will submit this thread of discussion to the list, for open discussion. Outside deadlines are irrelevant to the task at hand--particularly since the rules and their maker seem to flipflop between considerations. --戴眩sv 03:49, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

It's simple. If there is consensus to modify the logo in a certain way, then it can be modified in that way.—Eloquence 05:15, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well its not that simple if your cluttered rules clutter the process causing PM to submit his cluttered logo (thinking he can unclutter it later) causing it to lose entirely-- not on its merits, but its clutter. Considering that you say things can later be changed--- Your cluttered and hurried approach to things seems to be affecting the way people vote and the outcome of the election. Respectfully-Stevertigo 02:45, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Could you Steve, suggest us an uncluttered version ? Ant

I will do this right now.-Stevertigo
Paullusmagnus-logo (small) reloaded.png It is here. I have to run. I will reply to any comment tomorrow.--Stevertigo 02:45, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

After talking to Paul (PM) -- my claim that he was not clear about a hardline policy regarding the specific logo version was confirmed. I uploaded a black and white version -- apparently over the cluttered version. Apologies, and thanks to Angela for reverting it. Ive suggested that Paul make a formal request to allow his black and white version replace the cluttered version. The below is the text I left on his talk page:

"About your logo thing" Please see m:Talk:International logo contest. It was mostly from a talk with Erik on his talk page. I also uploaded a slightly improved version of the B&W version over the older, more jaggy one--I hope you DNM.-- I may have spoken too quick with Eloquence (I am not as eloquent as he) Now that i quickly re-read it, it seems that he was not opposed to modifying the logo, as long as there is consensus. I strongly recommend you modify your logo submission -- as the cluttered one sucks. You can use the excuse of being ignorant of the rules-- frankly I dont think they were made too clear, but Eriks been doing a billion things at once, so I dont begrudge him. ITs a great idea-- I realize your not an artist, so your eye for aethstetics may not be that great-- your hearing might be off, so all the comments about it being too CLUTTERED you may have not heard-- still I dont think the rules were entirely clear that the final concept vote would be based on minor niggles and not concept. Respectfully trying to sort out the strange,-戴眩sv 02:57, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

You can not change a logo mid-vote. I can't believe you even tried to do that, although from what you write above perhaps it was accidental. I thought yesterday you were doing it on purpose and I was not impressed (understatement). I hate the black and white version and switching it to that now invalidates all the votes people have made this week. When I gave my rating for that logo, it was based on the one on the finalists page, not on that horrible one you tried to upload yesterday. Angela 23:06, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Assume good faith Angela...ant
Good point. I shall try. Apologies for not doing so. Angela
Im sorry for the error-- I had both open in photoshop and I must have saved the B&W over the other name. But Erik already has stipulated that different versions be produced for differet purposes. What matters is whether clutter in the rules and explanations coincided with clutter in the "final" specimens to somehow cause a change in voting-- where the perfectly good and usable concept of the puzzle logo is being drowned under the irrelevant details of color and clutter. Im glad to see that most people (57points) were clear enough to ignore the details of this, and are voting for it anyway---I was under the impression based on initial returns that the lack of clarity on this was prejudicing the vote--swinging people who otherwise would vote for a simple concept to vote against. -Stevertigo 01:19, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here is the link to the black and white version of Steve!Paullusmagnus-logo_(small)_reloaded.png

Its fairly clear now that the PM logo is not in the lead, as was tabled yesterdday--

  1. 8: 3.285714286 (69 points, 21 votes)
  2. 4d: 3.1 (62 points, 20 votes)
  3. 3a: 3.0 (63 points, 21 votes)
  4. 5: 3.0 (3 points, 1 votes)
  5. 4: 3.0 (3 points, 1 votes)
  6. 10: 2.96 (74 points, 25 votes)
  7. 1a: 2.92 (73 points, 25 votes)
  8. 5e: 2.727272727 (60 points, 22 votes)
  9. 5a: 2.523809524 (53 points, 21 votes)
  10. 5c: 2.523809524 (53 points, 21 votes)
  11. 3b: 2.5 (50 points, 20 votes)

Im going to go out on a limb now and state that My premise was correct -- that cluttered rules about final versions have prejudiced the voting, and Erik's statement that changes can be made post-voting do not make sense, if we are in fact not voting on final versions now. Judging by how many people claim that the PM logo was "too cluttered"-- (perhaps following Eloquence's lead) its only clear that unlcear rules have spoiled this process. Stevertigo 22:28, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Stop trolling, Steve. Where did you get these results anyway? They contradict Taku'S count.—Eloquence 02:42, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Not so. The numbers were on the ballot page yesterday. Be well. SV
The interim tally above proves my point on the finalists talk page. If 5 and 4 have only 1 vote, they have an unfair advantage over more popular votes because non-votes are not counted. If non-votes were added as a neutral vote, things would be a lot fairer. It also shows that some voters are not consistant with each other in terms of the numbers they give an entry. They may give a "3" but think it is good, where others may give a "3" and be indifferent to it. This is shown in some of the comments next to votes. I'm getting very disillusioned with the voting process and the fact that the rules for voting were not clearly outlined before the ballot began. Particularly with what each number means. If voters are selecting arbitrary numbers for their own personal scale of bad to good, then tallying the votes as above is not fair to the candidates or the voters. Due to this, I have considered withdrawing my entry completely, not because it isn't rated well at the moment, but because it will never get the proper attributation it deserves under the current system. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Neolux 01:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Addendum: Looking at the current results, it seems my entry is currently in third place. My feelings still stand as above. There is probably a good reason as to why most of the entrants haven't submitted their own votes as yet. In my case I'm waiting to see how well the system is working. Maybe the other entrants are also waiting for each other to submit votes to see if they voted strategically or as a result of what they really think. If I give all other votes a mark of "1" to boost me a little, then maybe the others will do the same. If I vote for what I really think, then maybe the others will do the same. Remember there is a T-shirt, 100 euro, and bragging rights at stake for the winner. Could this be clouding some people's judgement? Neolux 01:54, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That question not only goes for the voters. ;-) —Eloquence 06:43, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Indeed. I wasn't excluding myself. What is going to happen with this though? Or should I just shut up and vote... Neolux 08:18, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
You want analysis and prediction? Logo 1a is going to win. There will be lots of whining, gnashing of teeth and a very cluttered T-shirt. It will go officially live on en: almost immediately and on the non-English wikis shortly afterwards. Paullusmagnus will hopefully engage in dialogue to address criticisms of the logo; failing that, others can use his source files to "unclutter" the logo. I do agree that the concept is neat. The reason that logo 1a was voted highest both in the initial vote and (for now) in the final vote seems to be that, of all the logos, it has the clearest relation to what Wikipedia is about, even though it overdoes it a bit with the symbolism. Your logo, on the other hand, grew out of an abstract concept. There is some symbolism in it, but it is not immediately visible. Logos 8 and 10 in the current competition represent the most "agreeable" candidates -- they seem to be the least hated (except for some people who hate sunflowers).
Paullusmagnus invested a lot of effort in his submission, he came up with countless variants. I don't think he has chosen the best ones, but that was his choice to make. You also did lots of good work. But in your case especially I think the variant selection was a bit off. I have always been someone with pretty "average" tastes and that's why I think I can be a good judge here: 2b definitely has too strong sports connotations. I don't like the colors of 2c+ very much - red/green looks like an environmental logo to me. I think you should have added a variant with colors similar to the ones I proposed. I do think your high ranking reflects the overall very professional look of the logo.
In general, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the only Wikimedia project. In the interest of variety, it is quite likely that the runners up will be chosen for some of our other projects: Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, the MediaWiki software, and so forth. It is also possible that we will have a new logo contest every 2 years or so -- just to harness the ever growing creativity of Wikipedians.
I think whatever voting system we would have chosen, the critics of said voting system would point to the result as evidence that it is inferior. I do not believe that the fact that people grade logos with different perceptions of the grading scale is particularly problematic. As long as they understand that 1=bad and 5=good, they should be able to figure out the in-betweens. If people vote many logos very low, that is more a case of strategic voting, where people feel so strongly that a particular candidate should win that they find it necessary to rate all other logos low. In the debate on the voting method, it has been criticized that this would be a deficiency of average voting. I do not agree. In fact, I believe that if people feel so strongly about a particular logo, then they should have a way to express their feelings -- average voting allows this. In case of another vote, however, I would be willing to experiment with other systems, just out of personal curiosity.
My main hope right now is that whatever the winner will be, we will still talk about optimizing it and not be content with the result as it is decided, just like we keep optimizing Wikipedia itself.—Eloquence 09:58, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think I may have written something that seemed harsher than I intended. I have no problem with PM winning the contest, as I agree it is a excellent entry with strong symbolism in regard to WP. My approach was from a different angle, and since I have not been a Wikipedian for long, perhaps I missed some of the symbolism with my entry. It has already been suggested previously that my entry may be considered for a WM logo, and I would be honoured if it were actually chosen. The comments I've made here are not because I'm bitter about the strong possibility of my entry not being chosen. More that in fairness to all voters and entrants there is some ambiguity as to the intentions of the voters when casting a numerical representation of their feelings towards an entry, and this is something that could have been avoided before voting commenced.
I would congratulate whoever the winner is, and take pride that I participated in a contest that had over a hundred entries and I was actually a finalist. Perhaps it was not only premature, but immature to threaten to withdraw my entry at this late stage, as in reality the chosen logo would likely have a large margin and my issue with the voting process would not change the chosen logo. If, however, there is a very small margin and the chosen logo wins by 0.02 or something, then I feel my issue would be more relevant.
I do not intend to offend anyone, nor appear to be a "sore loser" as that is simply not true. I have tried to remain objective, and still believe I am doing that. In many countries, any competition is closely regulated, especially where a cash prize or prize worth something is offered. Auditors are employed to oversee the process, and the entire contest must be approved by an accredited authority (usually a government gaming authority). Perhaps I am more used to that style of competition, and I apologise for not always seeing it as the bit of fun it was probably intended to be.
I'm glad that I have finally got a thought-out and well articulated response to my query though, as on other talk pages related to this, it was generally ignored or short-answered. Thanks for taking the time to response as you did eloquence, and I sincerely hope that by voicing my opinion I have not soured this competition for anyone. Neolux 23:06, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
You sure didn't come across to me as being anything short of honorable. I too have not yet voted because I am not sure how to mix strategic and true opinion voting, and because I am not sure how to seperate my desires from my opinions. I think that there is not as much potential for hard feelings precisely because you are thinking about the possibility. Paullusmagnus 23:46, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

First my apology for granting misleading results of voting. As seen, the early version of the counting script does not take any invalid cases into account. Revised script doesn't count invalid votes like votes for 12 or votes for 1a. Let me know if you found any problem. Finally, this voting is just so much fun! -- Taku 06:20, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is changing one's vote preferences (before the deadline, obviously) permissible? --Robert Merkel 01:27, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes. (according to User_talk:Eloquence). Angela 03:46, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)