# Wikisource talk:New Wikisource logo

Archived page

This page has been archived and should not be edited and modified.

Contest is over for now. Yann 13:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

process approved. Glad we move forward here and to see there are already good choices :-) Anthere 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

may I know when and by whom this process was submitted? by whom was it approved? ThomasV 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Afaik, the process was started by Datrio. He asked Jimbo, Angela and I if we agreed on the concept of changing the logo on the 31st of january. I do not know for Jimbo or Angela, but as for me, I did not comment the process to use for the replacement. I consider it is the community business. I tend to think Jimbo and Angela would agree. In any cases, we did not discuss the procedure internally. Anthere 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to add the old logo to the list of choices! (or you might end up with an inferior replacement :-P) -- Kim Bruning / 80.126.238.189 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

## First vote on CONCEPT instead of a particular logo

This is how the Wikipedia logo was chosen and worked really well. Compare the concept winner at meta:Logo history#Paullusmagnus_logo with the one that won ratification. The first was an unpolished idea, and the second was a polished professional image. I'd hate to see a great concept lose here only due to a poor implementation. --Maveric149 02:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% and hope the selection will proceed in this manner. There are several outstanding concepts here that are not well-implemented. But regardless, I'm really glad to see that someone is finally pushing us to move forward on the selection of new logo!! Dovi 09:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I quite understand what this means. Are we voting on a logo which conveys the right ideas, but not in exactly the way we would like? Does this mean that there is a two-part vote? The first on "which concept" and then the second on "which logo that conveys the desired concept"?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In short, Mav's idea means yes, first the concept then the logo that conveys the process. For instance, people might decide that the logo should look like a book, as in one of the examples, even though none of the "book" options at this stage looks fantastic. Then in the next stage variations on that theme can be offered, and the community chooses which one they like best.
It is important to emphasize, however, that even though I personally agree with Mav that this is a good way to do it, I feel even more strongly that the whole process should be run by the community. Give Datrio's latest comments below, I hope other participants will offer their own views on the process, on its dates, etc. Obviously, it cannot begin on the first of February. I'm glad Datrio was bold, but let's the rest of us do that too! Dovi 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about the "first concept then logo" option? from my own experience, lots of people may say or think flat out that they don't want an iceberg, and if shown an image, (mine for starters:)) change their mind and like it... what about a one time two votes process? each person has two votes, one for the concept of the pic, and one for the pic, and they can choose to put both on the same pic if they like the concept and the pic, or separate votes, which would mean that they want one concept realized by another designer... now the problem is how to count the votes :/ --Kcyclopedist 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

## who wants a new logo? who should decide about it?

I believe the decision about a new logo should be taken by the wikisource community. By this, I mean the people who contribute to wikisource. Not people whose only contribution here is to give their advice on the logo.

Agreeing on rules, in my opinion, is a preliminary step before any vote can be organized. ThomasV 10:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with ThomasV, I don't recognise any the usernames I see voting on the project page as wikisource contributors & question their suitability to decide that we even need a new logo, let alone which one it should be. Can someone tell me who decided to call a new vote on a new wikisource logo in the first place and post a link to the rules you want to be used to decide this contest? AllanHainey 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like someone was just "bold"... As far as actual contributors deciding, I agree with Thomas. Thomas, what do you think of using the exact same voting system for this as you brilliantly implemented for the language domains issue?
As far as whether we need a new logo in the first place, either that can be voted on first separately, or else it can be included within a larger decision (since the current logo is there is an option too).Dovi 11:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As a rare contributor to Wikisource, I should like to point out the Wikisource project is a part of the larger Wikimedia community, which supports it by providing the vast majority of its resources. All other projects have selected their logos through a Wikimedia-wide discussion, most of them taking place on Meta. It's important to engage with the larger Wikimedia community because this helps others be aware of what your project is doing, increases both traffic and contributors to the project, and reduces divergence between what the project sees as its goals and missions and the views of the larger community of its goals and missions. - Amgine 18:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question of "who wants a new logo" - as it was mentioned many times, we currently don't have a logo. The image you see in the top-left corner of the page isn't a logo - it's a free graphic released under the GFDL - the Foundation cannot use it as a Wikisource logo.
Secondly, who choses it - same as above, the Foundation, or to be more precise, the Foundation's Board. As you're probably aware, some time ago a new Wikispecies logo was chosen without the Foundation's approval. There was some ruckus about it, but luckily, the author agreed to give his copyrights to the graphic to the Foundation, and all was well.
As to who should vote on the logo - it's been said on the main page of this article - anyone who has an account. Like Amgine said, it's not only important that the Wikisource community will choose it - this logo has to be chosen by the international Wikimedia community, to get as much feedback as possible, along with new design ideas and professional input. This isn't a normal vote, this is a very important vote not only for the community, but for the Foundation in whole.
I'm sorry that I was, like Dovi stated, being bold. But the logo discussion went on for more then a year without a clear consensus, without any decision. Something had to be done about it, and once more - the logo has to be changed. I hope the community will understand the importance of this for the Foundation. Datrio 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
For this, I agree (reluctantly) that this should be more than just a community-wide vote, as this is a publicity measure, in a way. When new people see Wikimedia's projects, the logo will be what initially attracts them. That said, I am opposed to the idea of being flooded with votes from other projects who have never (or rarely) contributed to this project, and would like to see some voting standards implemented, such as a form of weighted voting, as was done for the sub-domains.
And can we have a different voting method as well? If everyone can vote for as many logos as they desire, and can't oppose a logo except on the discussion page, it seems that the choice for the Foundation's Board will be according to their sole whims, since there won't be an actual consensus here (because we've flooded the page with approvals and "like everything"). The voting should be restricted to a very small number of votes per user to get the best outcomes, in my opinion.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Birgitte made a very good point: it would be nice to know to which extent Datrio speaks for the Foundation.
As far as I have seen, this vote was advertised on meta. It was not advertised in the wikisource subdomains. It was not even mentioned in the wikisource.org Scriptorium! Therefore it is not surprising to see people from outside the community giving their advice, while Wikisourcers have no idea of what is going on above their heads. This really gives me the feeling that the opinion of people from outside the community matters more than that of Wikisource contributors.
Datrio, did you talk to members of the board before you started writing this page, or does the comment by Anthere simply result from her following the link on meta? I organized two votes before (subdomains and protectsection). In both cases, I had discussed the issue with at least one member of the board before.
ThomasV 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I talked with the members of the Board. Jimbo, Angela and Anthere agreeded with the rules and the whole process. As for the advertising of the vote, it's hard for me to comment on it - I announced it in the Polish Wikisource (my local project) and the English one. The main page of Wikisource is protected, so I couldn't edit it. I didn't think about the scriptorium, that's correct - but I added the information on Wikisource:Logo. There's no mailing list of Wikisource, but there's the #wikisource IRC channel - I advertised there, too.
People should announce this vote on their local projects - that's clear. There are already multiple language subdomains, I couldn't inform all the communities - I think I did enough for most of the community to be aware of the vote.
Birgitte, I'm really sorry that you think I'm disrespecting your community - I think the same as you, that the Wikisource community, along with the Wikinews one, has the best international co-operation from all of the Wikimedia projects. I'm sorry for forgetting about the international Scriptorium, I added information on the vote there.
As for the Wikispecies logo, the logo was chosen by the community and uploaded in place of and on Wikimedia Commons, overriding the old logo. The Board wasn't notified neither on the vote, nor on the change, since the community of Wikispecies had all the discussion going on their project. This turned out to choose a logo which was bad for quite a few reasons (mainly technical and promotional - the logo is pretty, true, but...), but since it was changed already, and no-one really opposed that much - it stayed. But this shouldn't be the way we're chooing logos in the Wikimedia community.
So, to put it clear, once more - I am deeply sorry of the fact on how fast this might be going on for most of you. The discussion on a new logo was dead, with new entries and no consensus on what to do. As for the voting rules, we're not choosing weighted voting only because, like I stated, this is more serious to the Foundation, than to the community. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the Wikisource community won't have any use of the logo - but the Foundation will use it for official documents, marketing purposes, printing Wikisource content, etc. That's why the final word is for the Board, and the international community of all the other Wikimedia projects can suggest a logo.
Actually, one more thing - if you want, you can make a page subsection, an extra column, or anything - and give results for weighted voting, after the vote will end. Remember, once more - this is a straw poll, to determine which logo does the community want.
I think that's all from me. I know this isn't enough, but once again, I apologize for all the confusion and jumping in your community with this. If you want, you can suggest new rules, but please take into consideration what I just said. Datrio 14:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand "we're not choosing weighted voting." Does that mean the board has actually decided not to use it? Was the board even asked? Even if this has interest and importance outside of Wikisource, it is obvious that Wikisource itself still has a special say in the matter. What about Mav's suggestion of deciding on concept before actual logo - was it already decided to do that (or not to)? The Wikimedia board nearly always respects reasonable community decisions, and lets things proceed from there. I strongly suspect that if the board knows that any reasonable, effective process is being decided on here they would be quite happy with that. I highly doubt they would say that all the details are already fait accompli. Dovi 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the Board didn't decide about it. Do read again what I said - I think that it'll be the best for this vote, because everyone's vote should count the same on this specific issue. The Board only agreeded to the rules I wrote, which were, I have to confess, blantly copied from the Board elections rules, which are my personal favourite and didn't fail so far.
As for the if the board knows that any reasonable, effective process is being decided on here part, there's one problem - the issue of the new logo was around for more than a year - and nothing happened. I know there was an ongoing vote, but it was closed, AFAIR.
And as for Mav's suggestion, I think that's fine, this was happening on every project so far. If you can, just change a few lines on the voting page to make it clear that this is a vote for a concept, not the final logo.
One last time - if you want to change anything, be bold. Just be sure to ask here if you want to make any serious changes, and consult them with the Board afterwards. Remember, we have 12 days left to change anything we want. Datrio 16:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Datrio. Please keep one basic thing in mind: Even those of us at Wikisource who would like a new logo never thought of it as something urgent. In fact, some of us even prefer keeping the current one (though I personally am among those who would like it replaced). In the meantime, there were plenty of other more urgent things to do, like recover from the move language domains in September, which took several months in English and other languages. Several contributors (chief among them ThomasV) devoted huge amounts of time and energy to this, and the logo was the least of their priorities (whether for or against replacing it). Because of their efforts, now things are finally flourishing now in nearly two dozen languages!

So if replacing the logo has suddenly become more urgent, either to contributors or to the Wikimedia board, that new sense of urgency can and should be discussed as well, and acted upon. It is perfectly legitimate. But I don't think "it's been over a year" invalidates the local contribution to the process. Dovi 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I talked to Anthere on irc. Things got a bit clearer to me. Here is what I learned (see also what she wrote at the top of this page):

• The problem of the current logo is that it was released under gfdl. The Foundation wants (well, this point is not very clear... let us say some people at the Foundation want) to be able to protect its logos, and it cannot protect a logo that is under gfdl. The author and copyright holder of the current logo is a wikipedian. He could be asked to transfer copyright to the Foundation. If a vote is organized, I plan to ask him.
• The organization of a vote is the business of the wikisource community, whether the votes takes place here or on meta. The board has not decided anything about weighted voting. We shall decide of the voting rules (and actually we need to, because a vote with no agreement on its organization rules will not be acknowledged by the board. this is what they mean by 'reasonable process').
• Datrio proposed his own organization rules to the board. They approved these rules. They did not know whether these rules had been debated before, or whether they were the decision of a single person.

ThomasV 08:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, in light of ThomasV's comments, should we come up with a voting procedure? My personal preference would be a weighted voting--this time, though, I think it should be weighted by time of account creation, or account creation and number of edits. If we are going to be flooded by outside voters, we should lessen the weight their votes are given. Also, I think we need to limit the number of logos any user can vote for. This approval voting system seems to be quite inefficient if anyone can vote for every logo possible.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea on the voting to kick around. Every user gets 1 vote as standard, regardless of where they're from, etc. But there is a 2nd vote (which can be used to vote for the same or a different logo from the 1st vote) for those who've been wikisource members for over 1 year & have over, say, 300 edits (but not if the majority of those are run up between this date & the date the voting goes live). I think we're better off keeping it as simple as possible.
Also I think it would be a good idea to see if the current copyright holder of the current logo would consider transfering it to the foundation. I'm not sure whether we'd need to continue the vote if he would as the only reason for the vote seems to be that the current logo is GFDL. AllanHainey 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who is the copyright holder. The problem will still be that the logo is GFDLd, transferring the copyright will not change the license. 82.212.68.237 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it matters. If the copyright is transfered, then the licence can be changed. Yann 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it is possible to change the licens (I don't think it is). But I think changing from a free to an unfree license is not something the Foundation will do even if they can do it. It would be opposite the idea of Copyleft and the principles and goals of the Foundation. EnDumEn 09:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you don't understand what is a copyright. The owner of a copyright (the person who creates the work) can do whatever he/she wants with his work, including changing the licence. And you mix up the copyright of the logo with the copyright of the content of the site, which are two things completely independent. Yann 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I see now that the vote is only for the concept. Then it might be possible, if the copyright holder agrees, to make a new version of the current logo that is not GFDL. But the current version can still be used under the terms in the GFDL. /EnDumEn 10:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

## Longer discussion

As this discussion is taking longer than I expected, I propose to give two extra weeks for discussion. That means the vote will start on 1st March 2006. Anyone against such an idea? Datrio 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok for me. Yann 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And me - I've just returned from a two-week holiday. After having been involved in this process for 15 months, it would have been gutting to get home and find I'd missed the ending! --HappyDog 15:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

## Other Wikimedia logos...

...can be found at commons:Wikimedia. Alphax 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

## What's happening?

There has been no further discussion about this vote since my comment on the 12th (which was over two weeks ago!). Are we really starting the vote from tomorrow? Who can vote? What is the voting process? Are we voting for logos or concepts? It seems like the necessary ground work has not yet been done, and that the vote will (once again) have to be postponed... --HappyDog 15:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We need that people get involved to draft the voting rules, etc. Sorry, but I don't have any time left at the moment. Yann 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I should've read the discussions before submitting my propositions :) my mistake. Since I've just registered, I kind of prefer the idea of flat vote (not the weighted thing); I can understand that longtime users would prefer to have more weight in the vote, but I kind of find that "un-wiki". Additionnally, newbies may give a fresh point of vue on the logo... Anyway, since the vote is unlikely to take place any time soon, I guess the point is moot... I am 'bold' enough to propose my logo, but not to take on my shoulders the whole voting process --Kcyclopedist 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I am an administrator on french wikisource, and I am discovering this discussion only now ; so, sorry if i am a few late for this proposal !
I think it could be necessary to make discussions on each sub-domain of wikisource (because all contributors doesn't - like me - speak correctly in english). With these items :
• Explain why we must change it (but is-it really mandatory ? Yann said that actual owner can transfer his right to wikimedia. Are there any people who contact him about this ? Personally, I prefer to continue with the actual "logo".
• Debate on "how to vote".
• And finally "vote for the new logo, if necessary"
Rules for voting can be different according to each sub-domain. But the result can be : "10% for logo1, 5% for the second, 15% for the third, etc"
We can then added the result of each wikisource with weighted vote (according to the size of database ?). For example : English wikisource database = 30% of the total of each database, French wikisource is 15%, etc... François Rey 14:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
my contribution : this picture to advertise the vote on wether or not the logo should be changed --Kcyclopedist 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I guess we should begin discussion on our respective sub-domains. That way, there will at least be a strong Wikisource-only consensus to add to the entire Wikimedia-wide consensus.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
ahem... weighting subdomains with the size of their database does not seem very appropriate to me... if you organize a vote that way, I think that many people will complain. ThomasV 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What may your position be on the rest of Francois' propositions? mainly: first ask the local chapters if they want a new logo or not, and then move the final vote back here? --Kcyclopedist 08:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

## Mr. Artifact needs to go

Can we please get rid of this embarrassing bitmap artifact-ridden iceberg already? You've got a logo right here which has sufficient community support. Are there any actual objections to at least temporarily replacing Mr. Artifact with a decent picture that bears some actual resemblance to a logo? Or does this have to go through 50 different motions, votes, consensus discussions and refactorings on all the language editions first? You can still choose a different one when you get your act together, but for Christ's sake, this thing is so bad that it isn't even used in some of our official promotion materials, never mind the licensing situation.--Eloquence 23:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see one: if the actual inertia is judge enough of the way the community functions, I'd prefer the statu quo until something is done. --Kcyclopedist 01:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to 'temporarily' replace something without having involved all the language sub-domains (& at least made the users of wikisource aware of the process) as it is likely to generate bad feeling & smack of unilateralism, particularly as a lot of people who have expressed their preferences don't appear to be wikisource users (though I could be wrong). The reason the iceberg logo (& I call it a logo because it is used as such, regardless of how you define logo) isn't used on promotional material isn't because it is considered bad (There seems to be a fairly even split of folk who like it & folk who don't) but because the copyright is held by an individual & not the Wikimedia foundation it can't be used on promotional material, otherwise I'm sure they would. AllanHainey 12:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (I must not've been logged in when I wrote this earlier.

## why I do not want to organize a vote -- for now

I am very happy with the current logo, and I think that I am not the only one. let me remind you that in any community those who are happy with a situation ususally do not complain about it, that's why you do not hear them. it has nothing to do with inertia. the current vote died off because it was poorly organized, and also, I guess, because it was the decision of one single person. if you want to organize a new vote, you are free to do so; but then you should try to avoid doing the same mistakes. I organized the vote on subdomains. before I did that, the question of subdomain was constantly being asked and disputed, by people from within the community, so I think there was a need for a vote. concerning the logo, I do not hear a lot of wikisource contributors complaining about it, or discussing it in the local scriptoriums. this might be another reason why the vote died off. I personally will not organize a new vote, unless a logo change is explicitly required by the foundation, or unless there is a demand for it coming from the wikisource community. ThomasV 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

## No new vote is needed

The user who created the iceberg logo has now assigned his copyright to the Wikimedia foundation (see the article page or W:User talk:Kils#Precisions_needed_on_the_Iceberg_image, meaning it can now be used in the same way as all other wiki logos. Therefore there is no need for a vote on a new logo. I've just noted this on M:Meta:Babel but please spread the word. AllanHainey

I don't think people wanted a new logo because the old one could be a copyright violation. They just want a change for whatever reason. Maybe because the logo is so different from other Wikimedia projects, maybe because they want a round in stead of a square logo, you name it. Patio 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
patio: or maybe they do not want a change? did you ever consider that possibility? ThomasV 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
did you ever asked yourself what a logo is for? or who it is supposed to please? or attract? Kcyclopedist 06:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should vote first just for or against the present logo

Present logo - Square Iceberg

Against
1. Patio 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC) it's square - very unusual especially in Wikimedia projects
2. Nightstallion 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC) — Sticks out like a sore thumb among other Wikimedia logos (well, Wiktionary's isn't great, either, but it's better than Wikisource's), and misrepresents Wikisource; it isn't about knowledge hidden below the surface. Additionally, the logo is very dark and depressive in my opinion.
3. Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC). It's pretty much time to replace it. This is one of the few times I think the interests of the WMF and all the projects as a whole must take precedence. Logos are used on documents which the WMF will hand out. The current logo is not aesthetic at all--we've gotten used to it over time, but it still looks ugly. Think of what people who look at the logos and any WMF document will think. Is this attractive to them? Will it make them want to get involved? Will it make them think WS is a joke project compared to WP, WQ, WB, etc., who all have professional looking logos?
4. Same reasons as Zhaladshar. Dovi 17:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
5. I'm a contributor at Wikipedia but this is my first time at Wikisource. Frankly, for a newbie, that iceberg pic is disorienting ("A library of hidden knowledge," was my first thought...maybe just subjects like wicca and that kind of nonsense...). Besides, it's hard to identify what it is at first sight, specially when it's reduced like in the Wikipedia Main Page. That's why generally logos aren't photographs-because when reduced significantly they become indecipherable, as is the case in question. Somewhere I read that a good logo should be scalable, easy to reproduce, memorable and distinctive...your iceberg is none of those... as far as I can see, having that iceberg as logo is like having no logo at all. Finally, the reason that ultimately made me search for a discussion about this logo was the feeling I got from it, foreboding and doom. I mean, a lonely iceberg in the midst of a dark ocean? It's just plain creepy! Rosameliamartinez
For
1. ...
Patio : this is what is happening on the local wikisources right now, en.ws and fr.ws have started being consulted (the word 'vote' seems to be too binding for many) and I have asked permission in ja.ws, de.ws and es.ws. You can also start a vote in the ws you belong to, if it isn't listed here.
Kcyclopedist 09:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please help me with the links from the international wikisource to the subdomains, on Wikisource:New Wikisource logo? Kcyclopedist 14:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not find any links you are speaking about. What is the problem? If I want to make a link to an article XXX on the spain wikisource from here (i.e. from wikisource.org), so the syntax is [[:s:es:XXX]]; if I want to make a link vice versa (i.e. from es.wiki to here), so the syntax is [[:oldwikisource:XXX]]. -jkb- 16:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

After talking with a few people on IRC, I'm almost 100% sure you can't copyright something which was released under GFDL. So the Wikimedia Foundation won't have the copyright to the image even if the original author says so. Why? Because people around the world are already using it after GFDL, and it's given away further under GFDL. It's impossible to remove the GFDL license. Datrio 16:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If people said it on IRC, then it cannot be false. I am almost 110% sure of that fact. :-) ThomasV 07:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

## vote needed after all

Well, given the results of the recent polls, I guess it will be necessary to organize a vote... However I am a bit concerned by the lack of proposals... Do we really want to start a vote now, with the logos that have been submitted so far, or shall we wait for more proposals? ThomasV 08:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

...or shall we wait until the end of the local polls? It would be really stupid to invite local communities to vote on the need for a new wikisource logo and in the meanwhile start a vote to choose the logo. Probably i don't have understand your question. IPork 12:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
the polls on the french and italian wikisources will end in 2 weeks; the other subdomains where there is a poll didn't fix a date, and some other domains didn't even start the polls; simply because they weren't asked yet. at the very least, I think we should wait for results that can't be contested afterwards -either way-, and that all the local ws must be contacted one by one. I propose the same time frame, more or less.
Starting a vote now is of course out of question, in my opinion. Starting to discuss what process a vote may follow if the results of the polls so decide, may be needed if it is to be a speedy process.
Kcyclopedist 14:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We have to start a vote (otherwise why we collect those proposals?)

Frieda 14:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we must first see how much support there is to having a vote. If enough people want a new vote, then there will be far more input into the voting process (which will make the vote that much easier to carry out). I think the poll should only last two weeks after each sub-domain has been contacted, so that we can get the vote carried on with in a quick manner.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

it is hard to tell if enough people want a vote. however I prefer to see people make this site grow, rather than spend their time arguing about its logo. this is why I think a vote might be necessary; to have this issue settled once and for all. ThomasV 20:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should anyway wait until the polls end, and then we should start a new contest, with precise conditions and requests to the participants, an active advertising to get more contributions of professional level, and the process laid down before everything starts. This time there should be no room for dithering. Kcyclopedist 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While I won't spearhead the effort, I'll help do anything that is required (e.g., formulate voting procedures, advertise, etc.).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Todavía no logro entender si esto va en serio o es una broma. Veo que personas que no han colaborado en Wikisource están manipulando una situación. Respeto las opiniones de todos pero me parece increíble que usuarios que no han colaborado, que no llevan ni un mes de registrados y que parece ser que desean convertirse en el "artista" del nuevo logo de nuestra wiki estén manejando este tema. Este es un asunto muy importante, pero si desean hacer una votación, la opinión válida debería ser de los que colaboramos realmente y no de oportunistas que no han hecho nada por esta biblioteca. --LadyInGrey 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my translation of LadyInGrey's above message.
"I still fail to understand if this is serious or if this is a joke. I see that people who never collaborated to Wikisource are manipulating the situation. I respect the opinions of all but it seems incredible to me that users who do not collaborate, who have registered for less than a month, and whose only motivation seems to become the "artist" of our Wiki's new logo, are handling this subject. This it is a very important subject, but if they wish to make a vote, the valid opinion must be the opinion of those who really collaborate, and not of opportunists who have not done anything for this library."
ThomasV 08:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
OK so I do it, my opinion. The problem is that me by myself have no particular need to change it or not to change it, I really do not know exactly. But:
1. LadyInGray has right, that this is a matter of Wikisource participians, not every newbie registered since this morning should take influence here. I agree, there are enough people who know what Wikisource is.
2. on the other hand, changing a logo is a rather strong change. If we vote here, some old users, and if we say yes, image XY is the new logo, and if somebody changes is as a current logo, so within two hours we have here 1000 pages of protests - not from newbies, but from people from de.wikisource, pl.wikisource, en.wikisource etc., because the see the new logo suddently as well.
So, not everybody should take part on the voting (if we shall vote), but surely the (most) active users from the different language domains. Howgh. -jkb- 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I agree also, that not everybody should get the artist or designer or creator of a new logo. In fact, If I should votre now, I would get down my PC. There are too much ideas. It should be restricted. -jkb- 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Entirely agree. If a vote should happen, it should favor the older, active WS contributors. It's our project, and people who get involved today or registered yesterday should not have a strong say one way or the other, since they're probably only getting involved to vote and don't really have WS's best interests at heart. I agree entirely with LadyInGray and jkb.
Again, something along the line of weighted voting should happen. How we would utilize that since we now have many subdomains and so many user's contributions are split up along four or five different languages would be a hurtle we'd have to think about.
First, though, let's just get the consensus among the projects about the need for a vote.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just added a notice to MediaWiki:Sitenotice on the English domain. I encourage admins on other projects to do the same. This way we can get a general consensus of users who are active WS contributors.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I really would like to know what you are talking about. Probably I have missed something, but right now we are voting just to know what wikisource users think about the changing of logo. Nothing more, nothing less. Can we wait until we have the results to decide what to do next?
I don't understand the position of LadyInGray about this poll. If every local Wikisource will start a poll just to know if changing the logo is a good idea, we'll have a global view. Where is the problem? We are a huge community and organize a vote is really difficult, we all know. That's why we need to act locally first, and after, only if we see that the community want a change, we'll discuss about the contest and the vote.
A last thing. "It's our project, and people who get involved today or registered yesterday should not have a strong say one way or the other, since they're probably only getting involved to vote and don't really have WS's best interests at heart" This sounds really awful. Neither me, you nor other admins, burocrats nor others own wikisource. Don't forget that this is a collaborative project and also a user with 5 edits should say something about the logo. Or did i misunderstand the meaning of this project?

Greetings, IPork 20:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

## Concept without an image

Hello, I'm not a contributor to the Wikisource at all, though I've used it on a few occassions and am a regular contributor to Wikipedia. I have an idea that I think would be a good logo but I am in no way an artist and don't have a picture. We can all agree that the Wikipedia is the best known of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects and therefore its logo is the most recognizable. Combined with this and the fact that I live its logo, I think it would be neat to include the puzzle pieces idea into this logo. So now that I've given some boring exposition, I think that a puzzle piece with an open book on it would make a good logo, because it:

• is consistent with atleast one other Wiki logo
• is a single piece. The logo of Wikipedia is made of pieces like the logo of Wikisource, the same way that the information of Wikipedia comes from sources like the Wikisource.
• Includes a book, to show that this is a library.

Ofcourse, I also think it would be better for all the projects to incorporate puzzle pieces into their logos. This is my first edit with an account. I imagine I may have fixed a typo or two before creating it. Atropos 21:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

## Discussion without a point - just get that vote organized??

Lol, you take so long to discuss if a vote is called for, having the subdomain people first have each their own vote, on whether to have a vote in the first place! (they should just take part in the vote over here)..

This sounds like something out of a comedy about bureaucracy in 80's Soviet Union. Get moving already. And for what it's worth, the current picture hardly qualifies to be called a "logo", it's something like what we have on our internal company wiki and good enough because it's not supposed to be publicized, but on an official Wikimedia project big enough to be listed on the WP front page?? Get real. This whole tirade sounds to me like a plot/strategy from the "preservationists" to avoid having a vote they know they'll lose in, but I'm just guessing here/going by my first impressions.

Sorry if this is not the most "sensitive" approach on the subject, but TBH, I was like "is this for real" when reading this debate. Also sorry for stating my opinion even without being a regular Wikisource contributor (I usually edit on WP), but if I and others are to take this project (which is really great by the way) serious and attract more editors you really need a better logo :) Horsten 17:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a "preservationist", and I am willing to organize a vote. Here is how I interpret the results of the current polls : it is true that a majority of users want a new logo. However, a large number of heavy contributors want to keep the current one. In addition, those who call for a new logo have not reached an agreement on which replacement they want; it rather looks like everyone has their own idea. In these conditions, if a vote is organized now, I guess the current logo will win, because it will collect the largest number of votes. This is why I think "preservationists" should not be afraid of a vote. Whatever its outcome is, a vote will show that our logo has been chosen by us, not for us. It will put an end to comments from outsiders telling us to change our logo. ThomasV 14:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I could of course have elaborated more and maybe my point would have been clearer. What I mean is that the current "logo" does not seem professional. I know what the potential long-term value of Wikisource could be, so a bad logo is not enough to put me off adding whatever I can find, but first-time users who may encounter Wikisource by chance, for example by following a Wikipedia link, may easily write it off as an amateurish project just because of the logo (hence the analogy with our company wiki, which just uses a photo for a logo). The point is, that when you want to publicise something and get people interested, these things do matter. If it was only about the existing users, it wouldn't - because you have a lot of other things that keep you interested, e.g. the community and your feeling of accomplishment, but to make it grow into something bigger, attracting more people is and generating awareness are important issues. You have the unique chance of being exposed on the Wikipedia main pages, with a proper logo that will make people interested. This is something many commercial ventures would give a lot for. So why waste it? Besides, as to your arguments about how the current logo will probably win because there are so many choices, that is a totally invalid point because in a situation like this the only fair way to make the choice would be some form of run-off election. Anything else wouldn't be much more credible than the recent Belarussian elections ;) Horsten 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
oh, your point was not "organize a vote" but simply "this logo is bad" ? thank you so much for making this clear; if I had known that, I would not have taken care to answer. And I particularly appreciate to be compared to Belarus dictator's, even though I said nothing about how a fair vote should be organized. I think it is critical to discuss rules, and to get an agreement on them before a vote is started. Even if our boring discussions remind you of Soviet Union's bureaucracy. ThomasV 08:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting me on several levels. I wasn't comparing you to a dictator, but simply questioning the democratic merits of a "First Past the Post" vote in this particular case, a voting system that you seemed to be supporting by saying "In these conditions, if a vote is organized now, I guess the current logo will win, because it will collect the largest number of votes". I totally agree that it is critical to agree on fair rules for the vote before it can be done, and if you were not simply assuming the "First Past the Post" voting system would be used, I apologize for misunderstanding you. Horsten 11:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the entire decision on whether people take this project seriously all boils down to whether or not we have an aesthetic logo...I am also willing to help in whatever way I can (although, if it doesn't happen soon, my availability will be close to nil) to get a vote going. There is a large support for a new vote over at the English domain, and I'm just getting sick of having this go on. Let's just put an end to it once and for all.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, let us start the process, by deciding what rules and deadlines we want to use. ThomasV 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

## organization of a vote

A majority of users want to have a vote, so I think we must have one. Here are basic questions about its organization. please add your feedback/additional questions below.

### weighted voting?

Just as in the subdomain vote, I think we will have to use weighted voting. Otherwise sockpuppets might flourish. It is fairly easy to count a user's contributions across all wikisource subdomains, using Kate's tool. I propose we weight users using the sum of their contributions in all subdomains. I do not think we should weight subdomains themselves, there is no fair way to do that. Just like in the in the subdomains vote, I propose to use logarithmic weighting. ThomasV 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe _some_ kind of weighting, but logarithmic seems a little too biased in favour of heavy contributors. The language sub-domain issue is one that affected primarily the editors of the wiki, as it is an organisational issue. This vote affects all people interested in the development of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think of myself as a Wikipedia editor, a WikiSource editor, a WikiBooks editor, etc. I think of myself as a Wikimedia editor. I don't think you should underestimate the relevance of this vote to people involved in other areas of the foundation's work. Weighting too much in favour of existing heavy contributors will be sending out a closed-door message that will only serve to alienate smaller contributors from the project. --HappyDog 19:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, logarithmic is more in favor of even minor contributors, should the equation be weighted appropriately. With logarithmic voting heavy contributors have to make thousands upon thousands of edits more than even a user with just a few hundred edits to have any substantial voting advantage. I think logarithms are the best way of doing the vote; next best would just be to have a voting bracket. Now, if we had exponential voting, then it would favor the heavy contributors, but logarithmic is very down to earth.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example:
I will be using the equation
$ln \frac{n}{50}$
where "n" is the number of edits across all Wikisources (should we sum up all of a user's edits--which I think is the best idea).
I have 14,703 edits on the English WS. Since this is by far almost all the edits I have, I'll just use this count. This gives me 5.68 votes. Now, say we have a user with just 1,000 edits across all Wikisources. This gives the user 3.00 votes. So, there's only about a 2.5 vote difference between the two votes, even though there is a 13,000 edit difference. I think this is probably a very safe way to go.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree with this. But we have to solve or to state another point: I think it is clear that there will vote registered users only, no IPs (sure, RC will be a bit bussy) , and also the user must be registered in any wikisource before beginn/annoucement of the voting; but the question is, if we want to have a limit of edits somewhere in Wikisource, which every user must have to be able to vote. -jkb- 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
My error - I confused logarithmic and exponential. Whoops! :) --HappyDog 16:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with logarithmic, but I think that we need a minimum number of edit, but not a very small number as 100 (sockpuppets out). ¿300? ¿400? ¿500? --LadyInGrey 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Anything below 50 will return a negative number. 50 will return zero. Anything above 50 will begin returning positive numbers. Should we make 50 the required number of edits?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
it is possible to use another minimum number in the formula, eg log(N/100), or log(N/200) instead of log(N/50). ThomasV 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Quite possible. I just used 50 because that's what we used last time. But we can use any number. It must be noted though, that for all users whose total edits fall below the number we use, they'll have negative votes. We might just have to assign a value (if we don't make the minimum voting requirement that number), to all values that fall below such a number.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I will like this principle. But we should think of one problem: on one hand, not everybody who comes here should vote, we discussed this above. On the other hand, we should not set the minimum of edits very high. In small wikisources it wil be difficult to find somebody who has more then 20 edits, and they could feel discriminated. The reason is, that - unlike on Commons - it is not necessary to register itself here to cooperate here. I guess there are quite a lot of people who colaborate here without beeing registered or logged in. This is just a opinion. -jkb- 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the voting minimum should be low. How about we make it 25 edits (from a registered username) to have the vote even be considered? And, of course, the edits and registered username should happen before the vote begins as well. I still say we use n=50 (this is debatable, though--please indicate if you have a better preference), and initialize any voter with less than 50 edits a vote of .5 (we could even have it go up to 1, if we want; few regular contributors on any project will have only 50 votes). Any thoughts?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
We could perhaps use a point voting system using the logarithmic method above. The logarithmic function would return the number of votes the user had in their possession, which they could then assign among all proposals as they please. However, I think Zhaladshar's formula is too conservative in terms of votes for this, so I'll use the following formula to illustrate:
$ln \frac{n}{15}$.
Given my 2700 edits to the English Wikisource, I would have 2.431 votes. I might vote 1.8 points to the Spirit 2 logo, and 0.63 points to the Zanimum logo. Other users would do the same with their given votes. On the closing day, the total number of points assigned to each proposal would be tallied, and the most popular proposals (perhaps the top 5 or 10) would be selected and revoted upon using the same system. This would then yield a single logo, which would go through a process of polishing and improvements before implementation.
Regarding the minimum number of edits, we could depend on the formula to calculate it. Given log(n/15), a user with 10 edits would have zero point; a user with 11 would have a tiny 0.041 points. A user would require 100 edits to recieve a single integer point. The formula could also be tweaked to automatically take into account a set minimum:
$(ln \frac{n}{15})-1$ would return 0 points for 100 edits, and 0.004 points for a user with 101 edits. Given my 2700 edits, I would have 1.431 points.
// Pathoschild 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is, when shall the vote begin? I insist that once the vote begins, no new logo should be added to the list of proposals. It is therefore important to start the vote only once the list of alternative proposals is rich enough. If it was just for me, I would not start a vote now, because I do not like the other proposals. However, a majority wants to have a vote. So the question is, do we want to start soon, or to wait until more proposals are available ? ThomasV 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeas to deadline. No new proposals after the voting started. The problem is, that we have some more dozens of proposals now, many came last two weeks. It will be difficult to vote if there will be another new ones. But, OK, it is true, that the most of them are not good for this project. -jkb- 14:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What if we start the vote one week after we can agree on the procedure?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If we really decide to have a grouping-concept so we should start one week after this concept (i.e. the groups) has been presented, not later I guess. The question is, if we announce it here only or in all language domains in the same time (i.e. one week before voting. -jkb- 11:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
it is out of question to only announce it here. a vote must be announced in all subdomains, and at least one admin per domain has to be contacted, in order to translate the info in his language. ThomasV 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Plus on the appropriate Wikimedia mailing list(s) and on Meta. The vote should take place a fixed period (a week sounds good) after all these announcements have gone out. --HappyDog 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

### type of election ?

This question is a difficult one; we are not voting for or against a proposal, like in the subdomains case. Shall we group logos into groups (ie "vote for concept first") ? Or shall we use a two-run election ? Or something else? I have no idea. Feedback is welcome. ThomasV 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, difficult. But I guess I would welcome to group the proposals into goups. For example, the iceberg exists in some nearly ten forms. And it would be silly to split the votes between them - all users who vote for one of it, want something like iceberg. The same: books and other ideas. -jkb- 14:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree - concept first. I feel that some good concepts may fare worse than they should, because they have not yet been realised professionally enough, which is a shame. However voting for individual logos gets too bogged down in things that are so very easy to change, e.g. "Oppose - I don't like the font". This is why I created the grouping-by-concept section at the top of the page. --HappyDog 19:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's just do the concept first. That way, graphical artists will have a good idea for a logo that they need to create. Otherwise, we're almost expecting them come up with the "right logo" without anything to go by.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
does that mean that artists will be allowed to submit new proposals after we have chosen the concept, ie between two rounds of the election ? I find it a bit dangerous to vote for a concept when the logo does not exist. The question is who will decide whether a new proposal fits in the concept or not? for me, "vote for concept first" was just a way to group existing proposals. ThomasV 06:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason I'm for the two-stage election, is that most of the current logos are garbage. They don't look good at all and are even worse than the current logo. If we get the concept down first, artists will have a central idea to create their logo around. So, yes, we will have new submissions after the first vote (personally, though, I think we should have just first discussed what "theme" we want our logo to be and then told the community what we were looking for so that we could avoid this call for two different batches of logos).
And it's not that we're voting on whether a proposal fits the concept we decide; getting the concept down is just to give people a guide when they design the logos.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

### Precedent: 2003 international logo contest

Have you looked at the voting procedure used for the 2003 international logo contest? That contest garnered 150 proposals, so the voting method was fine-tuned to narrowing that down to a very few finalists in three steps. That voting method may be useful here, since we can't have a good consensus on a single logo with this many choices. // Pathoschild 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

## Conclusion of poll on English Wikisource

A poll organised by Kcyclopedist on the English Wikisource concluded today (see the archived poll). Users were asked to state whether they supported changing the Wikisource logo. The poll gathered 19 support and 11 oppose votes counting all users, or 6 support and 6 oppose votes counting established users (users with more than 50 edits). The result of the vote is thus either 63.3% or 50%, which is no consensus. // Pathoschild 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

so what do you suggest to do? to have a vote or not? ThomasV 07:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
We wait for what the other languages have to say, of course. Currently, it looks like this (although polls are not closed yet, of course):
de: is slightly pro, es: didn't hold a vote, fr: slightly pro, he: unanimously pro, it: decidedly pro with a huge turnout of 25 users (!), ja: slightly pro, and pl: unanimously pro. To me, that means that a minority is decidedly against holding a vote, so we should hold one; people in favour of the old logo can still vote for it, anyway. —Nightstallion (?) 14:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know the opinion of cs.wikisource (we exist since yesterday and I have counted just 12 = one dozen of new registered users!!!), maybe i will start an opinion pool on this, but it seems to be clear, that a vote should be done. I propose, that we make the groups of logo designs and that we decide the voting modality within say ten days, then we announce the voting and a week later we start it. Otherwise we discuss this still next Xmas and i would like to do something else at that time... -jkb- 15:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the general consensus across all projects is to hold the vote. So now we begin the very arduous task of coming up with a procedure and deadlines. I, like jkb, do not want to be still discussing this in 9 months, so the sooner the better.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with what all of you said. I'd say we should first put up an official deadline for new logo design entries, so that we can then discuss which voting modality would be best, based on the diversity and amount of entries. —Nightstallion (?) 09:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Zhaladshar. Maybe it's an idea that people depending on their number of edits in Wikisource get a certain amount of points (let's say e.g. 100 - 300 edits 1 point, 301-500 edits 3 points, more 5 points) to give. They may spread them on 1, 2 or 3 logo's. At the end we keep let's say three logo's that have the most points (if more logo's get the same number of votes they all go on) and with those 3 we vote again on a one (wo)man, one vote base. Just an example. If one logo has an absolute majority this is not necessary. Patio 10:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of spending "points" on several logos. However, making the number of those points proportional to the number of edits would really favor a few heavy contributors. I think logarithmic weighting (see above) is much more democratic. ThomasV 08:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, fitst: I like the logarithmic weighting, indeed and I favor it (it makes differences between users with 10000 edits and 100 edits, but I guess in a quite democratic way); secondly, it could be nice to spend my two or three votes to support two or three designs, but I think this is not necessary if we decide to vote in two steps: first the ground design (or concept or whatever, like iceberg, books, birds...) and then one of this group. -jkb- 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I hear the crickets chirping, or is there still someone besides me who's interested in this? =] —Nightstallion (?) 16:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not that you're the only one with no interest, I think the biggest thing is most don't want to put the effort into organizing a vote. Most people have other things demanding their time, and a vote for a new logo keeps getting pushed to the back of things they have to do. I know right now, I don't have much time to devote to it, and I'm not all that interested in doing all that work unless other people help. Of course, I need to get more time to help do it to begin with. School's almost over for me, and then I'll be available. But again, I don't want to spearhead the vote process. This unsigned comment was made by Zhaladshar
Well, it would be rather curious for me to organise the vote, as I'm more or less only an interested observer (highly active on Wikipedia, moderately active at the Commons and Meta) who thinks the current logo is an abomination... ;) I don't even have suffrage in the vote. If I can help, though, give me a call. —Nightstallion (?) 13:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not have much time either... However there is another problem : I do not feel comfortable with the idea of organizing a vote if the set of options (the logos) is not known in advance. It seems to me that this is very risky... it would be better to encourage submissions first, and then to vote for the existing proposals. ThomasV 13:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that most of the submissions have already come in. Incidentally, how was it handled in the Wikipedia logo vote? —Nightstallion (?) 08:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
no, I'm refering to the "vote for concept first" idea: many people favoured this option. However it means that we will launch a procedure without knowing in advance the possible outcomes. if we do that, I think that some people might end up being very disappointed by the outcome. ThomasV 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

## Current stylized logo ?

I just saw the logo had been changed to the stylized iceberg. What does this mean? Is the vote still ongoing?

see the discussion and conclusions on Wikisource:Scriptorium#Logo_update, -jkb- 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by that, This logo right now is skewed, it needs to be round and it needs to be a little more 'below' that it currently is.

This page has been archived and should not be edited and modified.