Talk:Wikinews logo contest voting/Runoff

Advertise runoff vote

We need to make sure this vote is advertised widely before we get it underway. —Christiaan 20:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Please announce it to all existing wikinews mailing lists, the foundation list and on the village pumps of the existing wikinews versions. --Elian 15:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No need to exclude choices on a technicality

The goal is to provide voters with enough choices to allow them to choose the best logo, right?

Enforcing an arbitrary deadline to exclude variations on the winning theme does not serve that goal.

The concept of a "globe with waves" is what won the first round of voting.

The polar variations I added address concerns raised by some of the voters.

— DV 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The concept won, not any specific implementation.--Eloquence 04:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough. —Christiaan 11:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to place any variations that are submitted once voting had already begun in a separate entry on the list. This makes it perfectly clear which version voters are selecting, avoiding the confusion of the previous vote.
No one is running for office here. If someone doesn't like a late entry, they can simply vote against it and no one should feel personally insulted. — DV 18:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then we should re-start the vote. The results are disputed since the uploads are in violation of the rules. Or is Eloquence allowing this one rule to be broken because it favors a variation of design he has voted for? Are the creators of other versions of the logo allowed to upload variation that address concerns? Davodd | Talk 04:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all Dan100 was the one who unilaterally changed the stated rules, after the voting had already started, to state that the vote was void if there were late submissions. This is not Eloquence's fault, so please stop implying it. You are directly challenging Eloquence's integrity, and as a long-time contributor he deserves better than that.

More importantly, this is a Wiki. The community decides by consensus what the rules are. Some folks may think they're in charge, but they're not. The only ultimate authority is Jimbo, and I don't see his signature on anything written here.

Moving forward, anyone is welcome to upload their original artwork for new logo ideas. While there are a few contributors running around creating "rules" under which such ideas can be presented for consideration, most contributors seem to be more interested in seeing a good logo come out of this process, than adhering strictly to any rules that someone declares must be followed.

As for restarting the vote, there only seems to be a dispute created by you and Christiaan, based largely on Dan100's pre-emptive attitude towards collaboration in favor of a rushed poll with little chance for anything more than "design by committee", which is a real shame. — DV 08:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. it appeared from the above conversation that there was an arbitrary enforcement of established rules. Instead it appears, there is instruction creep of the first order going on. Davodd | Talk 09:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My goal in re-starting the logo selection process was to get a new logo for WN in a timely fashion. The previous voting round was not accepted as having produced a final version as so many new variations had sprung up after people had already voted for one particular logo (the vote was not run as a concept-selection process, although in hind-sight it should've been). I wanted to avoid this supposed 'run-off' round having the same fate; hence the warning in the rules. Dan100 09:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

moved from content page

Disputed Comment

1. This entry should be invalid since it was uploaded after voting started in violation of the rules as stated above. Davodd | Talk 17:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   See No need to exclude choices on a technicality. — DV 18:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   Is Eloquence allowing this one rule to be broken because it favors a variation of design he has voted for? This poll is corrupted due to aribitrary rule enforcement. Davodd | Talk 04:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   Long-time contributor Eloquence deserves the assumption of good faith. I am surprised to see you question his integrity in this open forum. You can vote against the logo if you don't like it, there is no need to mount a personal attack. — DV 04:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   It's a valid question. Which rules are being enforced and which are not? And why? Davodd | Talk 07:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   I've responded to your question on the user talk page. — DV 08:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Way too much like the UN logo

The dymaxion map projection developed by Bucky Fuller would be far more unique. Folding and unfolding of the map would also make for great animation. See http://www.westnet.com/~crywalt/unfold.html and the flash animation of the folding.

SatMapPoster.jpg

-- Daniel Mayer 19:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somethink like this? The problem is that it's not really a compact logo, but maybe someone has a better idea? (I know there shouldn't be no more suggestion for a logo as it's in the runoff phase, but hey...) I think the problem with this projection is that Fuller's estate has the copyright to it. --Stw 20:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 
• 

This design is not copyright-able art - it's more of a mathematical projection. Which is why Fuller was granted a patent on this idea. The 1946 patent has expired, so this idea might be "legal". However I'm not a lawyer, so I would want a more informed opinion before pursuing this. — DV 05:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Image:Buckynews2.png has the continental arrangement I was thinking about. Simply adding that to the current logo on the content page will help. --Daniel Mayer 07:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where did the vote once, and vote against idea come from?

Someone posted a rule that you can only vote once for and against. Where did this come from? This was not how the last vote was held. —Christiaan 19:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added it on inquiry from Anthere what the rules would be for this round. Please do not alter rules unilaterally when the vote is already running, this is unfair to the people who have already voted. The point of the "vote against only one" rule is that it is meant to prevent gaming, i.e. increasing the value of your vote by voting against all other logos.---Eloquence 19:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but you'll note that it was altered initially when the vote was already running. I presumed it would be under the same conditions as the initial vote. —Christiaan 19:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your assumption was logical. I just added the rules to avoid any confusion, and I think somewhat stricter requirements make sense for a runoff vote.--Eloquence 20:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eloquence, you say that these rules are meant to prevent gaming. However, these rules are a strange variant of w:First past the post, which is notoriously susceptible to strategy dilemmas. It's one of the worst. Did anyone run this system by voting system experts? Most other Wikimedia elections have been some form of w:Approval voting, which is a far better system. -- RobLa 23:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting doesn't have against votes, does it? These are important to gauge whether a logo with many for votes might make some people angry -- which is more important for us to know than for some political election, because we're a community trying to maintain harmony. But if you allow an arbitrary number of against votes, then that would make the system vulnerable to gaming. I'm not sure if it would be OK to allow an arbitrary number of for votes.

Yes, it would be nice to get some expert opinion on this, but I also think that this vote is not important enough to worry too much about those details.--Eloquence 06:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

STV would have been the best. Are we capable of tellying STV votes? —Christiaan 00:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

South pole is more NPOV

Wikipedia and family is very big for NPOV. The South pole is the most neutral place on the planet. Also there is at least land. Wy not use the South pole for the logo? It is also more original --Walter 22:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing there is not a readily available south pole all-continents projection. Furthermore, the majority of surface land is in the northern hemisphere, and would suffer the greatest distortion in a south pole projection. So, for convenience and clarity's sake I don't think the suggestion can work at this time. - Amgine

No one wants to see the south pole, no one lives there.

No one lives there yet. The poles are melting fast. Walter 10:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Walter++. Incidentally, a South Pole view would be boring - I thought about this possibility as well, but some obscene percentage of the world's population is concentrated in the northern hemisphere. However, I heard a great idea a while ago which was to rotate the logo to a different continent for each day of the week - I don't think this aught to be abandoned. - McCart42 03:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Results voided by addition of new graphics?

New graphics were uploaded after pollin began - in direct violation of the stated rules of this poll, which throws the results in dispute. Davodd | Talk 18:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish with these objections?

No one is running for office. We're choosing a logo for cryin' out loud.

It's interesting that you are raising these objections after you voted against a logo, and saw that the vote wasn't going your way, but I will assume good faith on your part, which is generous after your public attack on Eloquence. — DV 04:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never attacked Eloquence. I questioned what appeared to be arbitrary rule enforcement by the man who started the poll - until it was rightfully pointed out that another user was guilty of instruction creep. Davodd | Talk 09:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changing votes

There seems to be a lot of vote changing going on. Is this allowed? How do you stop it being rigged at the last minute by people changing their votes? —Christiaan 22:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If a user signs their vote, how in the world can the vote be "rigged"? Contributors are free to change their mind until the vote closes.

That is how the recent elections for the Arbitration Committee were run. A number of voters changed their mind many times, which is their right.

It's more curious that so many objections are being raised over the form of the vote, and the timing of when entries were submitted, rather than working collaboratively to try and improve the design of the logo.

I am starting to think that polls are evil. They seem to bring out the worst traits in people.

Although it's not practical for a large number of participants, if we could simply conduct a dialog with constructive criticism offered by whomever was interested, and conduct a process wherein improvements were offered until a consensus was reached on the best choice, we would arrive at a much better logo in the end.

As it is, it now seems pointless for anyone to offer any more improvements, despite the excellent suggestions by contributors like The silentist and others, as there seems to be a "let's get it over with" kind of attitude that is preventing such improvements from being considered.

— DV 04:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It can be rigged by people changing their against vote at the last minute to a candidate that might be about to beat their favourite. —Christiaan 07:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, that went right by me. Sorry I'm not well-educated about voting system theory. I'm more interested in collaborating on the design of a good logo than getting entangled in some bizarre zero-sum game. I'll leave politics to the experts. — DV 08:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do we need a final variation round?

It's natural that the process of creating a good, generally acceptable logo takes a while. As a reminder, the original winner of the Wikipedia logo contest (which was split into two rounds) was this logo:

We only arrived at the current "silver puzzle globe" logo through the process at final logo variants. Now, it looks like this logo will win:

I'm happy with that since I voted for it, however, the similarity with the United Nations logo cannot be denied:

This might get us into trademark trouble, depending on how rigid the UN is about enforcing theirs. Some suggestions have been made to alter the logo to make it look less similar, e.g. by rotating the map slightly. I think we need to explore these suggestions before finally settling on the logo.

So here's my proposal: After the logo vote is over, if the winning artist authorizes it, we can have a Wikinews final logo variants round. We can also put the winning logo into place immediately. But any interested persons could work together on that page to try to address all remaining concerns about the winning logo. It would be modeled after the final logo variants page of the Wikipedia contest. Thoughts?--Eloquence 16:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. No point in rushing these things. —Christiaan 17:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The map itself (putting the waves aside), is a standard mathematical projection of a world map (a simple rectilinear to polar transform), so I'm not sure how anyone can "trademark" such a thing.

However, it certainly is worth finding out if contributors prefer a version rotated 45° or perhaps even upside-down. We could also try three meridian lines instead of five, which would reduce some of the clutter and make it even more distinct.

Besides, if this site is truly a wiki, we should view this vote as a waypoint, not an endpoint. There should always be an opportunity for improvements. — DV 18:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current version has the zero degree meridian running vertically, which seems a good NPOV choice for rotation. So I'd be against rotating it (and can you imagine the arguments?! "No that's put America near the top...". I wouldn't worry about the UN logo; WN and the UN are sufficiently different(!) that we're not a competitor. Just brace yourselves for hearing "the logo looks like the UN's" everytime someone mention WN ;) Dan100 21:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nowadays one can register perfectly natural colors as trade/whatevermarks. And WN and the UN News Service (whose logo is even more similar to CSW9) are not sufficiently different. And even if there were no legal problems, the primary message that this logo will convey to many users is still: "knockoff" (or "rotated knockoff"). --Glimz 21:28, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why we are running this vote.

This is the process to chose a new logo for the Wikinews project. It is not an exercise in visual design or collaborative editing. That's all. We could go on running submission rounds and voting rounds forever, which could quite possibly result in a very pretty logo at some undetermined point in the future, but leave Wikinews with nothing. So, no, we don't need another variations round. Dan100 22:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you're happy to make me the logo pope then I will gladly work with DV to create a good logo for Wikinews. The reality is that choosing and refining a logo "by committee" is a very time consuming process. That's why I suggested that we put the winning logo in place already, and make minor refinements over the next few weeks. Yes, it is an exercise in visual design. A logo is very important to the future identity of the site and I want to make sure that we choose the best variant possible, preferably one that doesn't get us into trademark problems.--Eloquence

I too think that a no-trademark-trouble graphic identity is worth the process. villy 22:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is permanent

Dan100, I'm hopeful that someone will be able to convince a developer to install the winner of this vote. I'm just as tired of the Wikinews "beta" logo as anyone.

But your declaration, "no, we don't need another variations round" doesn't seem to follow the spirit of a collaborative wiki.

If there is a consensus to explore additional variations, to address the feedback from some of the contributors who offered constructive criticism along with their vote, then this vote will serve as a waypoint to guide us in our process to develop a better logo.

Wikinews is not a commercial enterprise. Consensus sets our deadline, and also determines how temporary anything is. Nothing is permanent here.

Even if one of the variations that I posted "wins" this vote, I fully expect that a more talented artist will come along and submit something better. (Or perhaps I will be able to do better myself.) Maybe not tomorrow, but probably next week, or perhaps six months from now.

Anyone who is expecting that we are selecting a logo that will permanently represent Wikinews is engaging in wishful thinking. — DV 06:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh I know this isn't permanent, and I hope it gets kicked soon as I personally don't like it particulary compared to some of the other concepts originally submitted. But the real problem here is that we're trying to do design by consensus, and that doesn't work. Good for articles but design. Strong designs are made blander and blander until everyone is happy, and we're left with a design people like, but is hopeless as a logo (faint, washed-out colours, not an original design, too similar to existing logos of other projects). I'd have much rather that Elo had simply picked a good strong design off the submission page and stuck it up. That's leadership! Dan100 20:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As much as I agree with your comments about the tendency of "design by committee" to lead to poor designs, I don't know how much room for "leadership" there is in a collaborative environment that demands consensus as part of the "wiki process". I make a point to read the Foundation issues from time to time to remind myself of the ground rules. — DV 23:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just suffering from wishful thinking. Dan100 09:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link from Wikinews logo contest voting

No one thought to link to this vote from that page until today? The vote should be extended. Many people won't see it in time now. —Ben Brockert < 00:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I extended the vote by five days, and am now going to actually go put up some links to it so that there is some chance of involvement. —Ben Brockert < 00:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't unilaterally change deadlines without waiting for agreement from other users first. I strongly disagree with extending the deadline. First of all, the runoff-vote is prominently linked on the English Wikinews site notice, that is, displayed on every page. Other Wikinews editions had time to copy that notice. It was also announced in various other places. Secondly, in discussions with mav, we have agreed that we want the new logo in place before the next fundraising drive, which takes place on Feb 18. We need a few days of room before that to make sure we have a transparent version in the right size. Thirdly, your argument that not enough people have seen the vote is hardly accurate, since there are already more than 70 votes as of the time of writing, surely a reasonably large sample. Finally, some Wikinews editions have already replaced the logo on their own. It's important that we have an official result to prevent the logo situation from becoming uncontrollable.--Eloquence 08:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Various other places"? It's wasn't mentioned on Goings-on. It wasn't even mentioned on Wikinews logo contest voting, for petes sake! Compare the number of current votes to the number that voted the first time. Also notice that the first vote was extended because it was not sufficiently announced, and it was announced a hell of a lot better than this one was. I'll set the deadline for the 16th then, plenty of time to edit the relevant pages. Finally, please don't "sign" pages while not logged in. There's no way to tell if you are or are not actually User:Eloquence. Most instances of people pasting a signature instead of including them via the normal method are not, in fact, the people they claim to be. —Ben Brockert < 23:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Besides the site notice which is displayed on every single page of the English Wikinews, it was announced on the international #wikinews IRC channel as well as the international Wikinews mailing list [1]. That's more than enough. For every vote you can use "not sufficiently announced" as an excuse to change the rules after the fact, since there are about a 100 different places where something potentially could be announced. The right places are the project websites as well as the mailing list, and those places were used. I will revert any attempts to alter the deadline after the fact. Finally, I did sign my comment logged in [2], which you could have easily figured out by perusing the page history.--Eloquence 00:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The vote is linked to from every page of en.wikinews and on the front page of meta. That is sufficient. Dan100 09:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)