Wikivoyage logo: final selection: fix link
← Older revision
Revision as of 15:54, 1 September 2013
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1,415:
Line 1,415:
:Seriously though, Ryan was correct in intimating that I should have kept my (strongly held) opinions to myself since it '''''may''''' be too late to do anything about us continually shooting ourselves in both feet about the big strategic issues such as our name, logo, search engine optimisation and reader friendly appearance/functionality. Let's look on the bright side: a perpetually low readership means less vandalism and shock of the new.
:Seriously though, Ryan was correct in intimating that I should have kept my (strongly held) opinions to myself since it '''''may''''' be too late to do anything about us continually shooting ourselves in both feet about the big strategic issues such as our name, logo, search engine optimisation and reader friendly appearance/functionality. Let's look on the bright side: a perpetually low readership means less vandalism and shock of the new.
:It might also be a good idea to abandon this dangerously liberal stuff about distinguishing between unwanted edits and unwanted editors. Let's just block anyone whose opinions a vocal majority disagrees with, eh? Why on earth should Wikivoyage be open to anyone who has knowledge to share, wants to help us reach our goals, and is willing to work with other contributors to get there? Isn't it all just so much sanctimonious claptrap to preach that the lifeblood of any Wiki Web site is the ability of any reader to add, edit, and delete information here? Anyone who has been tarred with the Sockpuppet brush or is editing from an IP should just be blocked, eh? isn't it untrue that Wikivoyage "absolutely depends on a large pool of casual readers to share their knowledge about places around the world", when this place has managed with a low readership just fine and dandy for nearly a year now? --[[User:W. Frank|W. '''Frank''']]<sup>[[Special:EmailUser/W. Frank|<font color="green">e-mail</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:W. Frank|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sub> 14:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:It might also be a good idea to abandon this dangerously liberal stuff about distinguishing between unwanted edits and unwanted editors. Let's just block anyone whose opinions a vocal majority disagrees with, eh? Why on earth should Wikivoyage be open to anyone who has knowledge to share, wants to help us reach our goals, and is willing to work with other contributors to get there? Isn't it all just so much sanctimonious claptrap to preach that the lifeblood of any Wiki Web site is the ability of any reader to add, edit, and delete information here? Anyone who has been tarred with the Sockpuppet brush or is editing from an IP should just be blocked, eh? isn't it untrue that Wikivoyage "absolutely depends on a large pool of casual readers to share their knowledge about places around the world", when this place has managed with a low readership just fine and dandy for nearly a year now? --[[User:W. Frank|W. '''Frank''']]<sup>[[Special:EmailUser/W. Frank|<font color="green">e-mail</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:W. Frank|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sub> 14:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
+
+
All right, folks: cool it.
+
+
First off, this is not the best place to complain about the logo. We all know its deficiencies, and although I remain baffled at the attachment some Wikivoyagers have to the RGB color scheme, the fact is that that attachment exists and was enough to make this the favorite choice. Remember, this is not the English Wikivoyage logo; Wikivoyagers from all of the language communities voted, and it's clear that strong pluralities like the RGB scheme. If there are issues, they should be discussed on Meta-Wiki.
+
+
Second of all, accusing users -- IP addresses or no -- of trolling, editing in bad faith, and lack of contribution to the site is '''''extremely bad form''''' and contrary to our [[Wikivoyage:Unwanted edits|longstanding site procedures]]. If you think someone is blowing smoke, cynically looking to get a reaction, or just plain stupid, don't tell them that. Just ignore them, please. This thread is Exhibit A for why ignoring trolls is good policy.
+
+
Finally, sarcasm doesn't work well in print form. I encourage everyone (not for the first time) to speak plainly rather than cryptically, and to be direct with legitimate criticism rather than oblique.
+
+
I would ask, but cannot require, that we leave this as the last word in this thread -- for our sanity if nothing else.
+
+
-- [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
== {{tl|Pagebanner}} ==
== {{tl|Pagebanner}} ==