[Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia, MediaWiki logos uploaded

Fri Oct 17 13:25:08 UTC 2003

Jimmy Wales wrote:
[snip]
> Is it really sensible to have different logos for the Wikimedia
> Foundation and Wikipedia itself?

I think it is. I think that reasons for this will become more evident over
time, especially if things shift in ways I foresee them doing... legitimacy
for other projects being the obvious reason, but there's more to it than
that.

> I'll tell you the truth: while I *love* the new Wikipedia logo (puzzle
> ball) and fully support it in every way, I *really* preferred the logo
> that's now on the wikimedia foundation website (the #2 logo, the
> abstract peace-person) all along.

Ditto. Failing that, I thought it was perfect as a WM logo... I think that
the #2/3 logoing was very wisely done.

> So, I hope the answer is "Yes, of course, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> an umbrella for many differently-branded products, and so just as
> AOL-TimeWarner has a logo for AOL and a logo for Time Magazine, we can
> and should have different logos, too.  The Microsoft logo is not the
> same as the XP logo.  And so on."

"Yes, of course, (blah blah)." Really, I think that is true... see below.
(On a completely tangential note, last I heard, it's just Time Warner again
now. They're not so happy with AOL these days.)

> But, I wonder.  We're not a huge media organization, yet.  And the
> beneficial branding impact of a logo depends on people actually seeing
> it a lot.
>
> If millions of people visit Wikipedia (and they do, and they will)
> then if I send a letter on Wikimedia Foundation letterhead to the Ford
> Foundation, say, then if that letterhead has the Wikipedia logo on it,
> there's a good chance that someone there will instantly have happy
> feelings towards us, because they'll instantly know who we are and
> what we do.
>
> But if the logo is different, and on a website that we don't really
> expect a lot of people to visit (as compared to Wikipedia proper),
> then it'll just be an abstract thing.  They'll think "Gee, why is the
> UN earth peace council sending us a letter"?  (ha ha)
>
> So, what am I supposed to do when I print letterhead?  Should we
> really do this?  Or should we use the puzzle-ball logo for everything?

I'd personally advise putting /both/ of them on letterhead to be used in
Wikipedia-related contexts; cases where it's clearly a Foundation issue
should have that alone. Putting them together isn't that much more
work/cost/what have you, and builds association between the two for those
that see it. Something like
(wikipedia logo with name underneath) a project of (wikimedia logo with
name)
or suchlike. I think that having the two logos (and consequently, two levels
of identity) will become more important over time, and it's the sort of
thing to do right from the beginning, lest we settle into a situation where
the idea of having them separate simply doesn't enter into people's minds.
Besides, imagery is needed to differentiate well in people's minds.

I had about four more paragraphs of this, but it was either incoherent or
redundant, usually both. Anyway, my thoughts on the matter (for now).

-- Jake