Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Logo"
(The logo now) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==Nice!== | ==Nice!== | ||
I'm glad there is finally a logo and I like the one that was chosen. And I'm glad about the layout changes. It no longer looks as if Conservapedia were trying to look like Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | I'm glad there is finally a logo and I like the one that was chosen. And I'm glad about the layout changes. It no longer looks as if Conservapedia were trying to look like Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == The logo now == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The logo now I think is perfect.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:04, 19 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:04, June 19, 2007
I think a logo would be a good idea...
Someone asked Wikipedia some questions about Conservapedia, and Wikipedia asked me to handle them because I'm active at both sites. One of these questions was:
- Is there any sense at Wikipedia that Conservapedia has violated a copyright? or otherwise stolen intellectual property? The sites are quite similar in their look.
Now, this is actually a non-issue, and my answer was:
- I can't speak for Wikimedia Foundation, but off the top the head I'd say "Goodness, no."
- Conservapedia looks like Wikipedia because it's running MediaWiki software and has picked the same default "skin" as Wikipedia.
- MediaWiki is open source software, freely licensed under the GPL. Anyone can use it and I think WikiMedia _likes_ to have other sites use it. There are many sites using the same software and many of them look almost exactly like Wikipedia. One of them I just found in a Google search is
- Another is
- which is an online version of the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1911.
But I'm think it would be a good idea to put up a Conservapedia logo, any Conservapedia logo, to allay any notion Conservapedia is trying to look like Wikipedia, or confuse people. I don't know anything about MediaWiki software, but if it's easy to make subtle changes in e.g. that greyish background pattern that might be a good idea, too. Dpbsmith 09:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)
- I agree that we should try to come up with a logo as soon as possible. I think the last one on the page looks excellent. Whatever we do decide to put up, we can always redesign or change it if we decide we don't like it. ~ SharonS 14:31, 1 March 2007 (EST)
- I like that one myself. Dpbsmith 15:41, 1 March 2007 (EST)
- I like the "C"-cross logo the most. But whatever is used, I think it should stand out, have good color to it, possibly be crystalized, and yet reflect conservatism and America without being too political in look. Karajou 23:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Nice!
I'm glad there is finally a logo and I like the one that was chosen. And I'm glad about the layout changes. It no longer looks as if Conservapedia were trying to look like Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 19:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The logo now
The logo now I think is perfect.--Will N. 14:04, 19 June 2007 (EDT)