I could imagine a thing with like some animated pull-down menu option some gimmicky thing…
I mean, if it were clear that this tagline was some thing here and there, like in the multiple tag-line approach, that'd be different. But if it is boldly "the" tagline, there's no way that artists would feel included or invited on first impression. -- Aaron Wolf wolftune.com On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM, heath rezabek <[email protected]> wrote: > Aaron, I also have an open culture focus, and I'd think, "Of course it > does. It'd be absurd to think not." > > It seems to me that all one would need to do is swap out that word 'data' > for your particular event, connection, purpose, moment, etc, to open that > dialogue with whoever you're working with. > > "See how art can change the world." > > How? For one, by being open. And, discuss... > > - Heath > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks, Rufus. I agree. The concern was initially about potential shift >> in focus and concern about inclusion of the community in the decisions. >> >> To be clear, I always thought it was great that lots of Open Data stuff >> was happening, but I saw "Open Knowledge" as basically including "Free >> Culture", and when I think of stuff cultural works like music and art, I >> see *zero* place for that in "See how data can change the world". And I >> think that will remain the case for everyone who ever sees that tagline. >> Nobody will ever see that tagline and think OK has anything directly to do >> with free/open art. >> >> So the initial concern remains: Does "Open Knowledge" include art and >> culture? If "See how data…" is even an option, I still have my doubts. >> Maybe I was wrong all along and OK was *never* inclusive of those >> things… I'm really not honestly sure now. >> >> Respectfully, >> Aaron >> >> >> -- >> Aaron Wolf >> wolftune.com >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 14 June 2014 16:43, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> While everyone has their opinions, if the tag-line that had been >>>> originally chosen without so much input had been an actual call-to-action, >>>> something actually decent, people might not have bothered complaining. >>>> >>>> I think "see how data can change the world" is clearly *disliked* by >>>> lots (perhaps most) of us, the thing I've found most troubling is that it >>>> wasn't scrapped. >>>> >>> >>> >>>> I have some experience with this sort of process, and I can tell you >>>> this: it is extremely hard to find something everyone likes. The goal needs >>>> to instead be to find something that *nobody* hates (and hopefully >>>> most people like). The only reason "see how data can change the world" >>>> seems to have been included in the running is because it was already there >>>> and some people had early prejudice for it. Whether we end up with a main >>>> tagline or 3-5 or whatever, "see how" needs to be *omitted.* It's been >>>> pointed out by multiple people how passive, distancing, topic-centric, and >>>> unclear it is. It doesn't qualify for "nobody hates it" status even if we >>>> hesitate to use the word "hate". >>>> >>> >>> @Aaron: as you point out a lot of people can have different opinions on >>> this topic. I should say, personally, I see a reasonable amount to >>> recommend the "See how ..." approach (as Rob Myers points out below). Once >>> you have "see how" and you can't repeat knowledge (you're going to prefix >>> with that remember!) you end up with a default choice between data and >>> information and given the framing of the tagline within "Open Knowledge: >>> ..." and potentially the narrative I think there is much in "See how data >>> can change the world" - btw I'm not saying there is not much in other >>> options, i'm just trying to explain why I think this was kept in on its >>> merits :-) >>> >>> >>>> We can go through the rest and figure out if any options nobody hates. >>>> Those are the ones we can move forward with. And I'm not saying just give >>>> in to haters, but when reasonable people express things that aren't "it's >>>> too fluffy, or it's too chunky" but really express true dislike with >>>> explanations and persistence, *then* we *need* to drop the item in >>>> question. >>>> >>> >>> I am concerned that some of the original reaction to this *tagline* was >>> an (important and valuable) reaction to deeper and more complex things than >>> the tagline - i.e. a sense there was some change in identity or focus. >>> >>> rufus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> okfn-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> okfn-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc > Icarus Interstellar / FarMaker Design Corps // icarusinterstellar.org > Open Knowledge Foundation / Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // okfn.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
