Wikiversity talk:Motto contest

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

Comments?

Contents

[edit] Creative idea

My take? This is a very creative idea at helping us define what this project is all about. Great stuff! --HappyCamper 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of contest

Is this a contest for a slogan that we put on our front page or on the front pages of sister projects - or both? Currently, on Wikipedia's front page, we are defined as: "Free learning materials and activities". (FWIW, this is already the longest slogan of all the projects). Cormaggio 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

why not both -- thx -- will work on explaining now... Reswik 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instant Runoff for this contest

For some reason that I have not see earlier, there are many people involved with Wikimedia projects that have a huge aversion to an instant run-off election. See wikipedia:Instant-runoff voting for details about how this is done.

My experience is that many people are hesitant to try new ideas they havn't seen working before, as instant runoff voting tends to be. I also have seen typical voting for slogans and logos turn out to be instead of the best icon, merely the most mediocre that everybody can stomache.

Even if this is just an experiment, I would like to see preferential voting take place here. I would even be willing to do the vote tallies if that seems to be a bit overwhelming, and do a round-by-round analysis.

If there is to be a formal "final approval" here, we could also end the instant run-off process until we have a predetermined number of strong candidates, such as 2-3 candidates that would then be put into the final vote that perhaps would get a little more attention. The whole point about this is to avoid having to do constant revoting when there appear to be winners of such a vote that have only a very small plurality of support but end up being the winner simply because they have the most votes of support. And such a winner is strongly opposed to by the community. --Robert Horning 17:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer of counting tallies! If I understand your points: I was thinking along similar lines about using instant runoff/preferential voting, which i included in the process discussed at the end of the page. I emphasized that it is good to aim for a strong majority choice (greater than 70-80% or more approval). So, I agree, if there is no strong majority emerging: stop with perhaps 2, 3, 4 or 5 remaining top choices. Then, perhaps hold another type of selection. So far, many of the options will have only one person selecting them, as the majority of people are listing their names by one of the mottos/slogans they create.
I was thinking we could use these selection steps: 1) at end of first round (the creative listing process we are doing now), remove all options that are not selected and introduce selected items to a second round. 2) second round is preferential selection (instant runoff). 3) if there is not strong majority option in round two, third round is some sort of discussion and selection process (with selection switching) for the remaining 2 to 5 options. (One thing: We need to verify in round 2 and 3 that sock puppets are not being used.) (Oh, shall we use the term, "preferential selection"--especially since this is just narrowing the field in this context.) Reswik 17:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: I think the simpler selection process suggested now for round 2 fits this context better -- lots of options with no support or 1 support sig and a handful with some support. Reswik 22:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In vici veritas?

'In vici veritas' (from my very poor memory) actually means something more like 'In having conquered is the truth'. It's just that vici is pronounced 'wiki' (these days). It's not Hawaiian, it's the first person singular perfect tense form of vincere, 'to conquer, overcome; defeat; subdue; win; surmount; exceed, excel; prevail' (from the OED). --Sam 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ill support this. --NightDragon 11:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision process

(Moved from main contest page:)

Eventually, we may need to appeal to Wikiversity custodians for evaluation.

My suggestion would be to do a run-off between the top five most popular candidates with subsequent eliminations until one gets a decent majority (2/3 or such). -- sebmol ? 08:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a good option. I think it may work for the slogans. There seems to be a possibility of a roughly two or three way tie for the motto options. It might be possible that discussions result in once choice.
Before reaching "finalists," my thought is to try a slower gradual process of reducing number of options next to those with three or more supporters and then, after that, with four or fiver or more supporters. There is a good reason for going slow: We don't have a many votes. I hope with several more months that we have a hundred to two hundred participating. It would also give more time for discussions. Now, it we have just around fifty participants. Reswik 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

To reply to your points:
  • 1. This process so far has not had negative voting as there have been multiple options and the openness to listing new alternatives. If we get tied versions, perhaps we will need negative voting/comments in the main comment list in the next round. Making criticisms in the discussion section is great, as you have done.
  • 2. The purpose of the mottos in the case of motto/logo combinations is rather specific. This is described in the Goals section of the motto contest page: "the purpose of this motto is to describe Wikiversity briefly." If the description can be inspiring, so much the better. But that is not the main characteristic of existing motto/logo pairs -- they are more clearly descriptive. It is interesting to consider if Wikiversity may wish to have 2 types of mottos: a descriptive version and a "mission/vision" version. If we get an approximate tie in this round for selecting mottos, that might be something to consider.
  • 3. I noticed that you supported "free learning community" in round 3 as a motto. It is fine to change ones vote. From the options in rounds 1, 2 and 3, do any of the alternatives appeal to you? Or, would you like to list new option(s) in round 2 or a new variation in round 3/4 and lobby for those in the discussion section of round 4? With several people supporting, close variations on current options can be listed in the main groups. Reswik 14:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Round 4 contest revision

Several different ways to revise Round 4 of the contests are discussed in this string. A simple alternative suggested by Cormaggio, mentioned at the end of the string, was selected by the facilitator.

  • Today, seeing the "finalists" for this contest, a growing concern (of mine) has crystalized. Action seems merited now. Given the goals of the contest, the options in this group would seem to work better as possible slogans for Wikiversity. They do not work as a short descriptive phrase, which is the meaning of motto in this context. Hence, I moved this group from the motto contest to the slogan selection process. What do you think? Reswik 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You confuse me. Where is that "growing concern" you describe? In what pages was it discussed? I did not have that concern at all. I'm also very surprised that the whole section was moved with no distinction between the proposals! Awolf002
      • Sorry for the confusion. The "growing concern" is my concern -- and noted now above as mine. I'll explain at more length: As voluntary facilitator of this motto/slogan contest, I have been observing the selection process closely and regularly since August. It has been increasingly of concern to me that "knowledge is free" sorts of phrases (and some other types) are statements of principle and are not descriptions of the project. They do not serve the contest goals. The "mottos" that appear in Wikimedia logo-name-motto project descriptions (that appear at the bottom of most Wikimedia projects) are short descriptions of the nature of a project. The goals of this contest and the nature of the needed mottos has been stated clearly for quite some time. It has been a latent unresolved (and unstated) issue to deal with non-descriptive motto alternatives. The term "motto" in this contest refers to a very specific kind of role for a phrase. The slogan(s) can be much more broad in nature. The Wikiversity community could depart from the Wikimedia practice in what it wishes to adopt for a suggested motto for motto-logo use. If there is a strong sense in the community to change the goals of this contest -- that would be fine. However, there has been no objection to the stated goals of this process to this point. Indeed, I think the goals are on target for what the project needs. So, when it became clear (to me) how to simply deal with this, it seemed best to fix this problem at the fortuitous moment of approximately (within a day or so) when support statements have been re-initiated - rather than have to untagle this situation later when it could be much more messy. Please re-consider the goal statements and examples at the top of the page. Do you wish to change those? If not, I think the step of moving this group to the slogan contest should remain. Thanks for considering, --Reswik 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I greatly appreciate your effort in managing this vote, yet in this point I strongly disagree. I think the distinction between a statement and a description (i.e. a motto and a slogan) is highly artificial. I for my part simply suggested and voted for what I though would look best under the logo and what best represents my feelings towards the Wikiversity project. This can be a statement of intent or just simply a bold statement that kind of summs-up what Wikiveristy is all about. Tho goal of the motto/slogan is to give newcommers a feel of what Wikiveristy is all about, right? In what way does form (statement vs. description) matter? Does it matter if "I'm loving it" or "connecting people" or "be all you can be" are statements or descriptions? They just give you a feel for what the product is about... --Pedro.Gonnet 08:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The distinction between descriptions and statements of principle is not artificial at all, not in this context anyway. At the top of this page (and at the bottom of wikimedia project main pages), you will see various instances of motto-logo sets for wikimedia projects. There is a strong family resemblance in what is a "motto" in those contexts: It is most definitely a short description of what the project provides. You seem to be talking about a traditional sense or an expanded sense of what is a "motto." This interpretation seems to me to introduce a lot of complications. In an expanded sense of a "motto", a wide variety of short statements could work with a logo to give some sort of feel of the project. In this contest, the "motto" has been defined as and, I believe, aims to be a contest for a short description. It could be called a "short description" contest (and perhaps should be renamed that). In the last month or so, to provide a home and function to the mottos that are not short descriptions, I had been thinking of suggesting to sub-divide the motto contest into two parts: 1. a "short description" contest, and 2. a motto contest (that speaks to principles and whatever). (I had been waiting to see how the logo contest unfolds and how this contest unfolds, before suggesting a resolution. The one I offered is the simplest, I think, and it serves well the needs of the project and community.) Anyway, one problem with mottos as principles is that you need more than one or a few principles to sum up wikiversity. The three principles mottos (in the motto contest above) are one way to start to address the multi-dimensionality of wikiversity (but i think you may need more than just three principles -- maybe 6 or 12 or more principles -- to do that). Another problem is that to present up front something like "knowledge is freedom" is to overgeneralize and provide something that applies also to wikipedia, wikibooks, etc -- much more so than some of the short descriptions we had as motto front runners in round three of the contest. (I actually think we can come up with better and simpler short descriptions than those getting more support now -- for instance, "free/open learning" or "free/open education" or even "free/open online university (though I don't think we should use that one). These seem to hit the nail of what is wikiversity on the head.) At any rate, since I have been mulling over the idea for the last month of subdividing the motto contest, I did not suggest the simpler solution of moving a non-descriptive "motto" statement group into the more wide ranging possibilities of the slogan contest. If others feel strongly about this, I think we can consider subdividing the motto contest. We definitely need to do something. And, this stage in the process is a good time. If we go this direction, both types of "mottos" (a short description and a principle motto) would have uses. The use of the traditional motto could be on a mission page, a vision page, a main page and various pages about Wikiversity. But, I think perhaps we should further develop our mission and vision before undertaking/completing a more expansive extra motto contest. A big part of the issue here is the interpretation of the word motto and how logos work in various contexts. Can we just work with a narrow interpreation for the given context of the contest definition? I hope so. If we stay with the contest goals as stated above and with creating a descriptive phrase that is like the other Wikimedia projects, then I think contest adjustment that has been made works quite well. The solution tried (simply moving some options to the slogan contest) is simple and inclusive; the option of subdividing the contest would likely get much more complicated. Another concern: I'm not sure our new and relatively inactive community will generate discussions of mission and vision in a timely way (see the stalled process on the current mission page) to help advance a more expansive approach to mottos. That is, ideally, more mission/vision ground work would be completed before doing a principle-creating motto contest. [Note: If this discussion continues to grow, I think it is best to move it to the talk page and link from here.] I hope with further talk we can agree to go with the simple solution offered above: perhaps renaming the motto contest to a "short description" contest. Part of that could be deferring a principle-based or more expansively defined motto contest to another page and timeframe. I must say that I might not have time to facilitate that more expansive contest. Facilitating this process is a time commitment involving a lot of types of support work. In short, I think going with a simple workable solution is in the interests of the community and contest at this time. --Reswik 14:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Ps. Here is a third option to resolve the above issue: 1. Rename the "motto" contest to the "short description" contest -- keep to a narrow definition in this contest (as stated currently in goals at the top of page). 2. Rename the "slogan" contest as the "motto" contest -- and have a broad, open definition of what could be a motto (just as there is implicitly a broad defintion of what is a slogan--basically, whatever people want at top of main page--and this broad "motto" could be used on various "what is wikiversity" and "about wikiversity" types of pages). What do you think? --Reswik 17:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
            • I think this is changing the rules of the vote too close to the final decision. If the framework of what is defined as a "valid motto" or "valid slogan" is being redrawn, I fear the whole process up to this point was for naught. You seem to assume, that most or all voters in this process need still to be educated about what is the goal of this contest. If that is true, *STOP THE PRESSES, NOW* and redo this! I really hope this is not the problem at all, and thus we can re-instate the original 'Phase 3' classification of candidates. Awolf002 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
              • As I described at length above, the change above is to apply the goals of the contest to the content of proposals. There is not a change to the goals. Yes, I think some of the contest participants have misunderstood the purpose of the motto contest and used a more broad definition of "motto" in that part of the contest - though there has been rather clear definition of goals for the motto part of this at the top of the page. This needs to be corrected. As facilitator, I was unsure of which way to go about this (having been contemplating a more complicated process than the step I took yesterday) If I had been more sure of what to do, I would have raised the issue sooner. At any rate, I do not think we are loosing information or options in the approach I took. It is simply that some of the options do not fit the purpose of the part of contest to create a short description of what the project is for linking at the bottom of wikimedia project main pages. But those options do fit the current "slogan" contest. Whatever we do, a change is needed. At this time, either we can stop the process and figure out how to go forward. Or, we can resolve this issue through some more discussion now (hopefully by others) and perhaps make further adjustments. To stop the process would probably involve a more major change to the existing process than the current adjustment. Hopefully discussion will work, but perhaps not. Before taking further action in the contest organization, I'm going to wait for a day or two to see if there are any more comments on this. And, in a day or two, I am going to raise this issue in the colloquium. I am going to raise the issue now on the custodian request page just in case those experienced users have any insights to offer on how to discuss and approach this process. --Reswik 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I think I begin to see your point. However, why is "World Wide Wisdom" not also a problem? It seems even less descriptive of the project than "Set Learning Free", don't you think? Basically, we only have the choice to select something very similar to the existing "motive", like "Free Learning Community", if I follow your agument correctly. Awolf002 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The general issue of what is the purpose of the motto contest may be resolved by the following that I plan to implement and propose as a process modification for review for 2 weeks starting tomorrow, re-initiating (and stepping back to) round 3: To deal with different purposes being served currently by the motto contest, a helpful approach seems (to me) to be to subdivide (or fork) the motto contest in this way: 1. a broad motto contest: keep all of the motto contest suggestions and re-define this contest (more broadly in the way it is partly functioning now through the kinds of alternatives that people are proposing) as seeking a motto which expresses the mission of wikiversity (possibly in an inspiring way); and, 2. a short description contest (the intended original purpose of the contest): select a subset of the motto contest options which briefly describe wikiversity in a way similar to other short wikimedia descriptions that go with wikimedia project logos. We would then have 3 contests: the motto contest (with a broad purpose of an inspiring motto proper); a short description contest (the original motto contest purpose but with fewer alternatives carried over); the slogan contest (for the main page subtitle). These would be created as a modification to the final stage 3 of this process (which has the very low bar of including options with two supporting votes from stage 2). I plan to implement the above tomorrow with a description also posted the colloquium. Then, I'll suggest at least a two week review period (allowing continuing support listing in stage 3) before moving onto stage 4 again (perhaps also preserving the votes and format already made in stage 4). Comments? --Reswik 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I think that's a good idea. I agree with Awolf that this is a bad moment to interfere in the voting, so we should best roll back to stage 3. --Pedro.Gonnet 07:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Hmm, I think it was going pretty much ok as it was. May I suggest that instead of having to decide whether a phrase is either a slogan or a motto, we simply add the phrases in contention as both mottos and slogans, and let people vote on whichever ones they prefer in whichever category? Cormaggio 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • I like the idea of including all options that were approved (4 or more supporters) in the motto & slogan contests in both contests. This is an idea I had considered, but was unsure about adding it at this time. But, it will work probably - it is inclusive. It could work to have just two contests but clarify that two purposes are being served. So, I noted that in the goal section at the top. The two contests only remain now (serving different purposes), but with more and identical options in both. --Reswik 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extending Round 4

I think this is a bad idea! Nothing focusses the mind more than to see ones options diminish. I think we should cut out 50% of the current candidates (I just picked a number) or so, but still allow for new additions if they gain enough support in a given time frame (say 5 votes in 3 days) and let that round go until December 15. We can easily add rounds, but should not let a large list of options linger. It gives the impression we will never succeed. Awolf002 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with narrowing the field. Some of the options have only 1 or 2 supporters -- those options also had less support in earlier rounds. A few weeks ago, I was thinking now (Nov 15) would be a good time for that. But with only 25 or so participants at present in this round, I think that it is OK to wait until Dec 1 or Dec 15 to narrow the field. But, if others think that reducing the field is best now, we can do that. For more points, see current discussion also in the colloquium: Motto_contest -extending. Reswik 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for the future: Round X closes two days after the fiftieth vote.--Hillgentleman|User talk:hillgentleman 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Awolf002's comment above and Cormaggio's points in the colloquium (Motto_contest -extending) have been gnawing at me the last few days. It seems possible that simplifying the field to the clear front runners in a round 5 now may encourage participation. So, let's try it. Reswik 08:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] None of the above

I don't like any of the entries — they are all outlandish and pretentious in my opinion. I'd rather see a down-to-earth Wikiversity:The Free University in the tradition of Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. CQ 06:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The finalists were supported by a strong majority of participants in round 4. Thanks for your suggestion. I personally like the brevity, clarity and focus of this but using university in a Wikiversity motto/slogan might not fit with the scope for Wikiversity project approved by the Wikimedia foundation board (see [1]). I've added your suggestion to round 2 list of options. --Reswik 16:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about "Get your 'learn' on." ?

[edit] What the hell?

They needed to allow WAAAAY more time for these elections, as well as been more vocal about wikiversity on wikipedia. i just learned about it, and i cant contribute to a slogan? What crap.

But to hell with it. My idea is:

Free Your Mind.

--NightDragon 11:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominations began August 23 and new suggestions were added through October 15. That was a long enough time frame for many suggestions to be made and was approximately the same time frame used for the meta:Wikiversity/logo contest. Thanks for the new suggestion. I've added it to round 2 where all suggestions are still being noted. Reswik 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about "Open-Source Education"?

(Richard2me 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] What motto contest?

First time I encountered this contest was today (10 Dec 2006), despite using Wikipedia quite regularly. I agree with some that the contest should be kept open for longer. I also think that it should be announced a bit louder on the Wikipedia main page so that more like myself can have some input.

In thinking about the motto for Wikiversity, the use of the word "knowledge" is redundant, Wikipedia is the store of knowledge, Wikiversity is (or will become) the house of learning.

My recomendation, late as it may be, for the motto is "Learning unbound".

Note this is not Wikipedia, but Wikiversity. I agree that this isn't the most well-advertised place, but it is linked to from the Main Page and Community portal last time I checked, so interested parties will have found it I hope. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Michael, sorry if it came accross that I was meaning one Wiki site was the same as the other. I meant it quite the reverse as support for my comment that the word "knowledge" was redundant in reference to Wikiversity. It's essence is a source of learning.
Wikiversity is (or will become) the community of teaching and learning that it aims to be, whereas Wikipedia is a store of knowledge that is but one of the tools of Wikiversity can use. - best regards, Hector G. 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contest?

Wikiversity should not really hold any contests, since Wikimedia isn't really going to give the user that wins any prize, except his or her username on the image page on Commons. I propose changing the name of this page to "Wikiversity:Motto collaboration" or something else. Thunderhead

[edit] mm

"knowledge makes you free"

"There is no wealth like knowledge; no poverty like ignorance."

[edit] More Motto

I known this is late but I want to add some of my motto for wikiversity.

Collective Self-Learning
Collaborative Self-Learning

I propose this because learning in wikiversity is practically Self-Learning in group level. Srinivasasha 11:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INITIAL logo and motto

If the misssion statement is still open to discussion, it's far too early to defibitively decide on the motto and logo, surely !

It's more than correct to elect an INITIAL motto and logo, but pleaseItalic text, shouldn't be made clear that this should not be "written in stone" and should be open to change as the project evolves/matures. wikityke 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The mission statement seems to have reached a plateau, having not changed much for last few months (i think). Ideally, there would be reciprocal development of the motto/slogan/logo and mission statement. I think that, indeed, we can now revisit the mission and polish that in light of the motto/slogan/logo. It should be noted that everything about Wikiversity is in a beta stage and I'm not sure but the main principles developed now might be subject to the approval of the Wikimedia foundation. Perhaps the outcomes of the motto & logo contests will lead to more discussion of the mission and vision for the university. Or, perhaps not. Various basic policies are currently being developed. If the project changes direction significantly for whatever reason, then yes, I think it would make sense to revisit the motto & slogan. At this time, I guess I think that if Wikiversity maintains and develops on the foundation of its current structure and goals, then probably no change in motto/slogan is needed, barring future basic problems with such. So, time will tell -- it is early in the life of Wikiversity -- i don't know if we know if things will be maintained or change. --Reswik 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did "Where Learning is Free" even enter in competition?

I thought it was a good one. -- "College Student" 18:30, 2 May 2007

The contest lasted 8 months, starting in August. This last round, round 6, was to consider the finalists that were chosen in round 5, which ended in January. Minor variations on the finalists were welcome. Your suggestion, which came in a day or two before this whole process closed, is actually not far from the slogan finalists. But, it came in very late. It has been past time to end this for awhile -- I was just waiting for the count of support statements to hit 30 for the winning slogan.
It might make sense to offer your suggestion again in a few months (in the colloquium), or sooner if you wish, as an amendment/change to the current slogan. And, note that this was offered a day before the contest closed. I would support considering that minor revision.
Btw, I agreed with your comment about it being nice to have the contrast of open & free in the motto & slogan sections. Thanks very much for your input. --Reswik 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Reswik, Is not the purpose of the slogan "contest" to choose the one that is the best for wikiversity? If there is new point of view, why couldn't we include it? Why must it be a "contest", and not a discussion, anyway? Hillgentleman|Talk 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It was past time for this particular process to end. I think it is fine to discuss this minor variation -- perhaps in the colloquim. --Reswik 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see further discussion of this suggestion here: Motto and slogan contests: discussion of outcomes. --Reswik 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] set

The wrong part of the verb is used. Set on its own is an imperative yet a motto is descriptive.

Thanks for raising this. My thoughts at one time about this were to use these variations for the final slogan:
  • (a punctuation adjustment) "- set learning free" (with "help us" implied and explained in a link somewhere sometime)
  • (the gerund) "setting learning free"
This revision hasn't been discussed much yet and I'll probably raise it in the colloquium in a few days as part of wrapping this process up (along with raising the issue of a last minute variation of using "where learning is free").
--Reswik 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. "Help us" isn't implied by an imperative, even if it's preceded by a dash. If one must have mission-statements like these (cf. Dogbert's mission-statement generator), the gerund-version would make more sense.

Likewise, thanks for your input. By implied, I meant that a mission statement that includes the phrase "help us set learning free" or some such would imply the meaning at top of page, with that being abbreviated. This issue is now receiving more discussion in the colloquium in post dated today. Note: It could be that a format adjustment to indicate separation of two sentences is simplest solution. --Reswik 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see further discussion of this suggestion here: Motto and slogan contests: discussion of outcomes. --Reswik 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How did the spacing on the pro template get messy?

Template:Pro --Remi 07:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems someone fixed the template. Thx -- Reswik 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I'm submitting an idea for a logo. (An idea because I'm no artist)

Think of the dove & the olive branch...

How about an owl (old symbol for learning etc) WITH the olive branch (to symbolise learning and peace in partnership.

Thank you,

Alan David

[edit] 'Open University' already exists

'Open University' already exists! Australia, Britain, South Africa, Etc. -- unsigned comment from main contest page, 5/29/07.

Yes, the term has been used by a number of institutions. Here we are talking about an "open learning" community as a community that uses the wiki format (and other online media) as a primary forum and associated collaborative wiki/free software movement related values. If one considers an open university to be an open learning community (and is it, in the sense we are using here?), then using "the" with open learning community might not be appropriate. This question needs to be raised. Thanks, --Reswik 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other suggestions

I'm creating this section for other motto and slogan suggestions that people have. Cormaggio talk 09:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "A community for openness of information, knowledge and understanding." (Bcameron54 - diff)
  • This is just an arbitrary idea, but what are thoughts on having the winning motto be in Latin (the basis of so much learning and language)? Open learning community would be something along the lines of Sodalitas Publicus Eruditio (forgive me if it is a poor translation).Strothatynhe 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main contest page:

  • Maybe a bit late for this but what about something along the lines of:
    • a. Virtual Learning for the Real World
    • b. Virtual Learning, Virtually Anywhere, Virtually Free
    • c. Open Minds, Open Courses, Open Worlds
      --70.201.94.221 20:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I Like to have the motto THE INTERNET AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE -- (unsigned)
  • Pity I just joined; a great motto would have been "Welcome to the Universe" (pun intended). Good Luck. -- (unsigned 8/14/07)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Motto_contest"
Personal tools