Talk:Wikinews logo contest voting
I removed this instruction:
- A vote will be taken to include a pledge that the voter will contribute to the article if it is selected.
...because I can't for the life of me work out what it means, but it might put off potential voters if they feel they're signing themselves up for something.
I also added an end date, because every vote needs one. Just over seven days is enough. Dan100 21:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Was there any intimation for submission? The present logos could be considered 'very good entries'. My suggestion would be for the people to check with wikipedia logos and suggest modifications and put them here to vote as well for the new wikinews logo.
There are truely plenty of beautiful logos !
Could it be possible that the Earth type do not show real continent lines for neutrality ? Either false lines, or blurred lines ? Anthere
This is approval voting, "oppose" votes don't mean anything or help the process. At the same time I understand the desire to point out flaws to prospective voters, so I moved the oppose votes to comment sections. —Ben Brockert < 01:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Call it the way you want, but if the process used is approval, but the approved version also gets a lot of opposition, you might have a good nice approval voting, but also a lack of real consensus, a whole bunch of unhappy editors and possibly a wave of criticism in media report. "Oppose" votes not meaning anything or helping in an organisation such as wikipedia escapes me. I believe the objection being relevant and mentioning it being helpful. A good solution would be to propose a new logo not centred on America, a bad solution would be to consider this opposition irrelevant. There are limits in voting being a good solution for the community to find a consensual solution, and we might be facing it. This logo is beautiful, it would be sad that wikinews gets really in a bad start with such a pov. Anthere
How to hold a vote
If you start a vote, please inform the people concerned by it. There are three mailinglists (english and german wikinews list, foundation list) where this should have been announced, and in the wikis of the two communities as well. I left a note on the german wikinews VP today and extended the voting period so more people have a chance to vote. greetings, --Elian 14:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Mailing lists never have and never have been the place for discussions or announcements. I put links to this on the front page of this Wiki and Wikinews this itself. If the German people wanted input into this process, they should've have kept an eye on Meta-Wiki where discussions about this have been going on for quite some time. There's nothing stopping you re-starting the whole process later on though - Wikipedia has had several different logos in its history, and I don't expect the one chosen in this vote will last indefinitely. Dan100 18:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Any poll or vote on an important issue has to be announced on the relevant mailing lists. And you can't expect people of german wikinews to monitor discussion on pages in a foreign language. Not everybody reads english easily. For restarting the process later on: this would be stupid administrative overhead. So, do you want a quick vote or a broad consensus? You can as well say "I don't give a damn if german wikinews people vote on the logo." --Elian 19:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Any vote can be announced on the mailing lists, of course. But that doesn't make them the place to announce it. The places votes have to be announced on are the relevant wikis. Please do put a box on the front page of de.wikinews if there isn't one already! I unfortunately do not speak or write German, so couldn't do it myself.
- However for fairness I will extend the the deadline by three days (the amount of time that elasped between the vote starting and you posting). Dan100 11:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This vote ends January 26
I proposed a seven day vote on the logo discussion page a good time before initiating the voting process, and no-one objected to that, so when I started the vote I stuck to it. There's no consensus - nor even a good reason - for the vote to go on for a long time. Of course, if more people object, then go ahead and change it, but don't say I didn't tell you, because I did :). Dan100 18:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Howeve as the de. folk didn't know about it for three days, it seems only fair to extend the poll by the same amount. Dan100 14:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I strongly object to the table. Anyone can already read the page and see the votes. What's the point of it? More importantly, the table is static, so if anyone votes and doesn't alter the table, the displayed tally is wrong. Dan100 11:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)