I mostly agree with you Mark, but wouldn’t it be the opportunity to give back to wikipedia ? To “pay our debt” for all the times we used the site ?

I suppose it’s a question of what you define as free. A designer may get the kind of exposure they could only dream of if their design was chosen.

I agree that it’s a risky approach for Wikimedia to be taking. Putting their brand in the hands of potentially untried and untested designers will leave them with A LOT of work to do after the fact to make sure that what they get is feasable, accessible etc - the kind of thing you would take for granted if you commissioned a pro.

My place on the fence comes courtesy of the Zen Garden though. I got a design up there pretty early on, along with a lot of people who, thanks to that exposure, have gone on to be ‘names’. I would class the Zen Garden as a design competition; the only prize is publicity and a sense of achievement. Is the Wikipedia competition really so different?

As a designer who is still growing her business and looking for some higher-end clients, I empathize with Mark’s temptation to submit a design but agree wholeheartedly on the ethics issues surrounding this.

What I see happening is a young designer with a lot of potential and talent taking this on as a way to “break in,” and in many ways, I can’t fault their desire to gain that level of exposure and jump start a business by perhaps years. What’s unfortunate to me is that Wikipedia’s request reflects a problem that I don’t see other industries having. I don’t think you’d see, say, a call for “we’re holding an accounting contest--shape up our books!” Or even “We’re building a new airport and holding a contest on its design.” It seems unique to the graphic and web design world--why is that? Is the value and skillset of a designer disregarded compared to other professionals, and if so, why?

Perhaps it’s partly a chicken and egg--as long as designers continue to submit spec work to competitions like this, some organizations and people will continue to ask for free work.

Mike: I believe the difference between a design contest of this nature and CSSZenGarden.com is that the Garden isn’t asking for people to design its “look and feel”, whether for profit or otherwise. It is merely a social gathering for CSS designers to illustrate the power of CSS-based design. The home page for that site will never be done by anyone other than Mr. Shea and anything related to that site (outside of the submissions) will likely also be performed solely by him.

I have heard several designers try to relate the Garden to a design contest, and I feel that they are not related at all. Yes, you can potentially get a lot of exposure by having a submission posted on the site. However, the only common element amongst all those pages is the HTML markup. Designers are promoting CSS-based design, not the Garden.

It seems to be spec-work season; as well as Wikipedia, both the BBC and Slashdot (I think) are holding “redesign our site for free” competitions (although the BBC’s is not for keeps).

I feel the same as you, Mark - I’d love to have the time to devote to a reimagining of Wikipedia or the BBC homepage, and the exposure would be incredible… but on the other hand I entirely agree with the No!Spec guys.

That’s potentially another part of the problem; the sort of people likely to have the time to do a free-of-charge design are those that are not doing this professionally (as the latter will have paying work to do), so the final ‘winning’ design(s) suffer from that lack of professionalism.

I think that ultimately, with a site like Wikipedia, the publicity will more than pay for the design work, so perhaps it is an exception. There’s been similar discussion over the recent Slashdot redesign contest, where there is also a guaranteed prize for the winner (a laptop). Especially in the case of Slashdot, which has historically looked terrible, these contests could be seen by some as high-profile websites recognising the value of design, rather than devaluing or commoditising it. Albeit, I wouldn’t like to see more sites, especially less-trafficked ones, try the same thing. Oh yeah, and I’m actually quite fond of Wikipedia’s current design.

I’m sorry I might be the among those who started this (in comments here : http://notablog.notafish.com/index.php/2006/03/07/10-what-about-the-reader)

I might not be a ‘real’ designer… but isn’t programming a process, just like designing ? Some programmers in the open source community contribute for free, even to programs that are only partially open-source (I’m thinking of the community around Safari here).

I don’t produce work before I have a signed contract, but I do free work from time to time, as I wish, for various people, associations or projects I respect or want to help. Like a programmer who works the day job and comes back home to contribute to free software in the evening.

Hi Mark, totally agree with what you’re saying here. It would be a disservice for any designer to take part in this competition as essentially they will not only be devaluing themselves but the profession as a whole.

Unpaid pitches are a blight on the design community. Thankfully I work for a company where we have taken a decision where this doesn’t happen. Instead we market ourselves by our reputation and proven track record in delivering highly creative solutions.

What should happen is as you said intially that people can submit their portfolio for Wikipedia to look at. I would then hope that there would be a paid pitch phase where say 5 designers submitted their work.

Unpiad pitches, just say NO!!!

I think that the issue is not whether someone would be willing to do it for free or not, because I am sure they could find a capable designer who would be willing to do the work for free (to get exposure, etc).

The real issue is about the amount of time everybody who submits a design (except the “winner") will have wasted on creating concepts that Wikipedia has no intention of using. Which is the same thing as doing the biggest project in your lifetime (which for most people submiting designs it will be), spending dozens of hours on just a solid concept, and then having that shot down.

I may have missed the point and hey I work in a communications department, but it seems to me that great design happens partly as a result of clear communication between the client and supplier. From the briefing to end result, it’s a ‘process’ as Mark points out and this requires input from the client and the designer along the way.

It sounds to me like Wikipedia think that a design for a website is a flat visual and are thus approaching this task like a children’s painting competition. Reminds me of all those art competitions on Blue Peter. Did Mark ever tell you that he had a picture on Tony Hart’s Gallery ;0) (one for the Brits that).

For relative unknowns like myself, an opportunity at this level of exposure is extremely tempting. I wonder if there was a “big break” like that in the history of some of the gurus whose blogs I read.

Many of these designers seem to have, from my POV, a history that just begins with something impressive - as far back as I dig in their portfolios I find no crappy tiny nobody-knows-em clients like I’ve gotten over the years. Like, all of the sudden they were designing for Nike or something - I always wanted to land a client like that (not with the state of my current portfolio, however!). I wonder if doing what I admit would be spec design for Wikipedia would qualify as a “big break” for those like myself.

Not saying I’m dumping the time into it - I’ve paid that bill before.

I have no problem with Wikipedia asking for work pro-bono. After all, they’re one of the largest open-source, free-content sites around. Their entire mission is one of collaboration and unpaid contribution. So in regard to those who say, simply, “Unpiad pitches, just say NO!!!”, I entirely disagree.

What I think is offensive is the way in which Wikipedia is framing the job: as a contest. By referring to the selected designer as the “winner,” and promising having “their work on one of the most heavily trafficked websites on the Internet and the pride of helping make knowledge more accessible to all,” Wikipedia is absolutely devaluing the professionalism of the design field.

Asking users to volunteer by tagging pictures, editing copy, etc. makes sense; it’s relatively immediate work that can be done in one’s spare time. Asking for designers to submit an entire branding/image redesign, on the other hand, is a little bit ridiculous. I’m with Andy: ask for designers to submit their portfolios, then see whether any of the favorite firms would be willing to do the work pro bono (though I admit, this effectively bars any talented-yet-new designers from getting their feet in the door).

As a budding graphic designer, the potential of having my work visible to such a large audience is hugely alluring. At the same time, I’m so turned off by the idea of treating this as a contest that I probably won’t do much more than sketch out a few logo concepts.

FAO The Wife
Any chance we can see the famous Tony Hart painting?

"I?m with Andy: ask for designers to submit their portfolios, then see whether any of the favorite firms would be willing to do the work pro bono (though I admit, this effectively bars any talented-yet-new designers from getting their feet in the door).”

I realise the pro bono aspect may x out the newer designers. If you think about it though, there are loads of similar opportunities out there for the newbie. Ok, perhaps not at this level but hey, sometimes you have to pay your dues!

If Wikipedia handles this right (getting the advice of those in the know before choosing), by sending out a call for portfolios they should assured of a decent range of experienced designers to select from, and not find out later on they are totally stuffed because they went with someone lacking in the experience and knowledge needed to pull this off.

I’m not saying there aren’t those coming up couldn’t do the job, but seems to me to be sure of a positive outcome, a serious project of this caliber calls for a seasoned, professional designer (or design team), not a youngin.

And think about it. As the campaign against spec and spec contests takes hold around the internet, there should be more decent pro bono jobs out there and less spec contests flying around. Plenty for everyone who wants to make their mark by giving back to their communities without being taken advantage of.

cat

I think what frustrates me most isn’t the fact that Wikipedia is asking for a favor. Their entire company is centered around the idea of free, open-source content; it makes sense that they’d want the design to be a volunteer, collaborative effort, too. What really gets me is that rather than depict it as a favor the designer would be doing for Wikipedia, they’ve chosen to portray it as a favor Wikipedia would be doing for the designer.

I think a lot of people aren’t getting it.

What does it matter if the contest prize is $1 or $1,000,000?

If it’s a laptop or Wikipedia exposure?

It doesn’t matter.  What matters is that the one winner may put X hours into the contest and get wonderful payment in return while the other 100 or 1000 or 1,000,000 contestants also put X hours into it and have “Here’s my failed contest entry” to put into their portfolio.

Big name long-experienced designer or not—you’re on an almost anonymous playing field if you enter the contest along with the amateurs.  Someone hits the nail on the head—beginner’s luck—and your time is gone.

The sponsoring company, no matter what they’re dangling, is wasting the loser’s time.  It’s disgraceful.  I’ve said it before in comments on other design blogs, I’ll say it again: Time is my one finite commodity.

They are looking to waste people’s time.  If I wrote a religious rule listing for what attains nirvana and what gives you eternal purgatory, wasting one another’s time would be in the top 10, because the Deity only gives us so much, we can’t buy more, we can’t borrow it from one another—and people who waste it are doing us a mortal disservice.

NO!SPEC Period.  I don’t care if it’s a golden carrot.  They’re still dangling a carrot, and the best “man” is not always the one that wins.

Quite true in the sense that Wikipedia’s ‘contest’ is wasting others time as Criss points out. I think it’s really the numbers game on the kind of odds the designers have to win or succeed in this.
I mean...what are the odds of being chosen in this globally recognized website? Extremely slim to none, I’m sure.
I understand the temptation to put your name out there in the expense of your time. What if you don’t win? Will future clientele believe your story that this was the actual piece in the portfolio presentation you submitted to Wikipedia (or any other big name corp)? Would they care?
In my approach, I see it as “saving your energy for better things”.

“Golden” carrots need to be banned or discouraged.

I was explaining wasting people’s time to my son (8 years old), I told him about the design contests, we did some math.  He wanted to know how much time it would take to make the logo, including dealing with the contest entry, and so on (bright kid!).  I estimated at least 10 hours.

The bigger the prize, the more people who enter the contest.  http://ecopedia.org had a logo design contest and ended up with 6 pages of entries, with at least 10 logos to a page, maybe more.  About 60 people entered the contest.  That would be 600 logohours.  Obviously some of the designs took less time and used the insta-logo-design software packages out there, but that’s a digression I don’t wish to address, since I don’t really call that Design :P

One person wins.  Say the prize is something worthy—$300 or more ($30/hour, which is OK).  59 people are out a total of 590 logohours.

If those 59 people had walked into a gas station or grocery store, they could have spent 1 minute each playing the lottery ($1/2 games availability and price in your state may vary).  For far longer a shot at winning much more money.  They could even exchange 1 hour worth of their pay (say $30) to play the lottery (in NY that’s 60 chances to win).  It’s still a rather long shot, but look at the payback if you DO win… and how much less of your time you wasted—an hour of pay, a few minutes in the store you were probably going to anyway.

I’m thinking the odds of winning the Wikipedia contest are approaching those of the lottery.  Then there’s how much of your time you need to spend—both entering their contest, and after winning it.  Maybe supporting Wikipedia would become a full-time pro-bono occupation—exactly how much post-contest work is there to do?  Since you entered a contest with no contract specifying how much more support is implied by winning (same goes for cash logo contests!) you don’t really know if you’re getting what you “paid for” in the end.  Will you have time for all that supposed exposure and extra business it might generate?

Those $30/hr return contests, after dealing with the post-winning aftermath could be $10/hr—$5/hr or “Oh, G-d how do I get out of this! What a huge mistake!” per hour.  Not only is there poor return on the time you spend on them, that’s time you can’t spend with a full-price client, marketing yourself, doing your taxes, playing Solitaire, hugging your kids, planting your garden....

I hear most people who win the lottery end up broke rather quickly.  I wonder if that’s true of winners of logo design contests too.

While I agree with most of you, I think it’s important to point out that, if this contest is like the BBC’s recent one, no back-end work is necessary. My non-designer friend asked if he could just create a cool-looking layout that they could do the coding for, and BBC said that’d be acceptable.

great work! You’re absolutly right.
Wikipedia hast to invest in a well thought-out concept. Otherwise Google or Yahoo will fetch an alternative out of the box one day.