Talk:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/The Puzzle Globe

Who should work on what

So (Joe) I think lets both discuss what gaps there are, and ill do the interviewing, if you can do the writing for now Vgrigas (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright - added some more bullets and potential interviewees JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaps

Logo history

2001

• notes here are interesting: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikipediaLogo-TheOfficiaFour.jpg
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_suggestions/Leading_candidates

2002

• French fork (shortly after the Spanish fork):

https://web.archive.org/web/20021128055143/http://fr.wikipedia.org/

2003

• Interview Erik Moeller
• Interview other Wikipedians from the time around 2003
  • Have a look through the contest voters
  • James Forrester
• We could possibly talk to Neolux, who made what is now the Foundation's logo as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neolux (Explanation of that logo here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neolux)
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_history

2010

• Interview Jay Walsh
• to be added: https://vimeo.com/105272267
• Link https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_official_marks/About_the_official_Marks , in particular:
• Talk about the use of a free font (Linux Libertine)
• More on the 3D model https://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/wikipedia-in-3d/

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_puzzle_globe_3D_render.zip Subject to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Visual_identity_guidelines

Redesigns

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns#Unsolicited_redesigns_of_Wikipedia
• Add comments from current WMF designers
  • Also Luis Villa: http://lu.is/blog/2014/07/15/designers-and-creative-commons-learning-through-wikipedia-redesigns/

Legal status

• should be a whole section about the legal status of the logo - it was built by the crowd, who owns it, why is it owned, etc

Guidelines

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Visual_identity_guidelines

Sections

Should we split this article into sections? I think otherwise it's going to be very daunting to a prospective reader. JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to separate the basic historical facts and narrative from the modern opinions / views / reactions that the logo has generated, making the latter into a second blog post. The topic is surely notable enough to warrant more than one post. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We should stay away from opinions, views, and reactions altogether. Most of the redesigns have been about the entire site which is a whole other subject and not one that can be brought up lightly. heather walls (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Right. I'm keen to hear what legal's view on this is (obviously if we publically say anything about redesign concepts etc it could have a wide impact). Personally I think the redesign angle is a take-it-or-leave-it and could really depend on what sort of angle we go for. JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)