Wikiversity:Community Review/The making of a mascot:What are the parameters?

What are the parameters for mascots that appear on welcome templates?
Hi, I see that on a welcome template (on User talk:Noj Cire Snave), User:JacobFrank has been provided as a mentoring mascot. I had a look around the mascot area including the random mascot generator. I could not find where this mascot had come from as he is not part of the list. Jacob Frank was around in the 18th century. According to Wikipedia, he claimed he was the messiah returned of God Almighty and got a lot of Jews to convert to a mix of Christianity and Islam from which point he invented his own new religion centered a game of dinner with the candles out and swap the wife. This was a game of "purification by being impure" and is explained on Wikipedia with a link to the page on "Swinging". Extramarital sex games in the religous setting, i.e. Frankism, "being Frank about it". That's very nice of him but how does Jack Wikiversity and the twins Vicky and Verity feel about Jacob being on the mascot team, and how exactly did he find his way onto the team without being listed as a mascot? How about having Hitler as a mascot? Point made.


 * Interesting questions. I made this mascot yesterday after Jtneill said I should feel free to turn him into a mascot.  Originally, he was an alternate account that I'd created to test the "block" and other tools, but then I decided to develop him as a mascot.  --AFriedman (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for mascots to be anything more than purely fictional characters?
Strong support for the concept that ideal Wikiversity mascots are not purely fictional characters, but are tied in some way to real academic subjects. In principle but not in practice, our mascots provide an additional opportunity to teach. Why not take advantage of one more opportunity to introduce new Users to new subjects, by having mascots which are directly tied to academic disciplines? (And no, mascots should not be living people, but Jacob Frank is long deceased. Just as Usernames representing dead people are acceptable, I think mascots representing dead people should also be acceptable.)  --AFriedman (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that the best role model figure of an academic discipline you are suggesting or just the one that a lot of books are written about. I am ringing Hitler here again. Is there not a vast academic field associated with Hitler and similar characters? Conversely, would it be fair to label Plato or Newton as a mascot when you could try to use some more fun or cool symbolic characters? It's a bit of a toss up if you might get Wikiversity Jack, Plato, or Hitler, isn't it? RTG 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting questions you posed RTG. We don't know much about this Hitler person, just hearsay and what you can find in internet. We will ask our (grand)parents if someone was involved in the evil actions from back then :-(
 * Definitely we would ask, what this mascot would feel about its patron saint's actions. Since they are different persons. Who knows perhaps we could get some more insights by this mascot. We think our conversations with this new mascot would help us think + develop more. So, generally, we both would welcome such a mascot and others. Mum told us: let's first talk and then pursue actions. We are going to take our nap now, talking much in addition to keeping Mum busy is really exhausting. :-) --Vicky-Verity 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hitler said he would like you very much... for DINNER!! Now who is more scary Wikiversity Jack or Hitler? RTG 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, User:WikiversityJack has also his bad + good sides. Depends on internal + external factors. I have heard someone say, people/users are just a product of their environments. Though I have to check more on that issue. Wondering, if I should start a learning resource for this? --Percy 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Something quirky and relatively obscure might well make a more interesting mascot than something better-known, if it's connected to a popular or important topic. A mascot that illuminates a comparatively little-known angle on such a topic will decrease the "prior knowledge" gap between people of different educational backgrounds. From JacobFrank's Userpage: "There are some interesting and colorful people in Jewish history, don't you think? I'm just one of them. Find out more." He doesn't follow the stereotypes about people from Jewish history, either. Regarding the idea that a mascot needs to be a role model: there's no specific way to "behave" like Vicky-Verity or Baah-Baaah. Percy the Penguin is probably the closest to a role model, because he claims to contribute to marine-themed resources and links to these resources from his Template and Userpage. Actually, I find the Frankist doctrine of "purification through transgression" amusing, so long as it doesn't do any real harm. I've tried to spin his "mascot" status as illustrating that Wikiversity is an environment refreshingly free from the rigid rules found almost anywhere else, where people are encouraged to create almost any kind of learning resource. The User:JacobFrank page attempts such an explanation. For example, there's an adaptation of one of Jacob Frank's actual sayings over there--"Perhaps if Wikiversity were only meant for the learned, it wouldn't have been given to you to do pretty much whatever you want with it." --AFriedman (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your description of JacobFrank as a mascot is more like a portal to, in this case, Jewish history. In my view, your description of the penguin, someone who edits marine topics, is good. It encourages useful participation rather than simply saying, "Isn't Jacob interesting?" I want to get into it with you but I might find it difficult if you cannot see a difference in value between a real person and a conjured one. There is no room to make things up about Jacob Frank in the same way as Percy the Penguin. Percy is purposely designed in every way. He can be moulded into whatever it is that makes him suit the "Mascot for learning" category best, can tick any boxes. Jacob cannot be moulded at all and must remain that which he is, not affiliated with Wikiversity for instance. I assume this to make sense. If you accept that, you can go on to suggest perhaps that a mascot should have an interest in learning, an interest in contributing, be affiliated only to Wikiversity and probably other stuff... a contributor to another WMF site or something. Is there any sense in that? RTG 03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, that Percy doesn't come with factual baggage and so is more open to becoming whatever people want him to be. In contrast, Jacob Frank and other real people may have all kinds of baggage. But it is precisely that type of baggage which makes people come to Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Foundation projects in the first place. We are here to learn, not to see a cartoon penguin. Don't you think it's interesting that Jacob Frank's sect practiced "swinging", even if you disagree with the practice (as do I)? It certainly makes me think differently about 18th-century Jewish history. Chance encounters with information on Wikipedia articles and other WMF pages are often quite stimulating and exciting, and I see Wikiversity as a place to develop novel ways of giving people more of these encounters. Edward Tufte, an expert in the design and presentation of informational resources, spoke vehemently against presentations with a low "data-ink ratio"--the amount of substance versus style. IMO, the mascot on Wikiversity is most consistent with Wikimedia's educational philosophy if presented in a way that minimizes chartjunk--visual elements of informational resources not necessary for comprehending the information displayed. For example, a mascot with a name or picture not associated with anything else is a lost opportunity to teach people about something. Jacob Frank presents (1) a highly specific topic--himself; (2) several more general topics--Jewish history, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and a philosophy that leans toward the absurd but may be more defensible than it appears at first; (3) the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules." I think the Percy mascot would have more informational content if identified as a particular penguin species, given an area of residence that is within that species' range, given a naturalistic photo of that species instead of the cartoon picture, etc. The other mascots, IMO, should also be tied to both specific and general Wikimedia resources and possibly illustrate Wikiversity policies. --AFriedman (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

===Is it acceptable for a mascot to be purposely associated with anything a court of law would sanction? In this case adultery but from this can be implied anything unsavoury. Examples: Johnny Joyrider or Seamus Shoplifter, etc.===

Several issues here. First of all, I have problems with the context of the connection between "purification through transgression" on the Jacob Frank Wikipedia page, and the page this phrase links to. It inaccurately implies that Frankist transgressions were limited to wife-swinging. Other examples of "purification through transgression", as far as the Frankists were concerned, might be eating pork and other forbidden foods on Jewish fast days, breaking the Sabbath, and Frank's serial conversion to several religions. The multifaceted aspect of "purification through transgression" is not clear from Wikipedia, although I've read about it elsewhere. Furthermore, is adultery illegal in secular countries, or just unethical? Besides, Ayn Rand and her fictional characters such as Howard Roark were also associated with adultery, but as with Jacob Frank (which is not clear from Wikipedia), adultery was just one aspect of what they were known for. I don't think Rand or Rand's characters as mascots would raise quite the same issues. In addition, I think it is POV to call any religious rituals "games", unless the people who are participating in them would also think of them in this way. One wouldn't call the polygamy of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, a "game." In addition, despite Jacob Frank's transgressions, he doesn't exactly come down in history as a villain, maybe unless you're Jewish. Elsewhere, I saw him being compared to Rasputin. However, his main impact on history seems to have been to get a group of Polish Jews to convert to Catholicism. I probably wouldn't support making a mascot of anyone who was more villainous than Jacob Frank. --AFriedman (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All in all it appears that utilising controversial figures to be mascots requires an ocean of debate when compared to the twin babies. Is it fair to say that your more acceptable principles negate your controversial ones? I am ringing Hitler again. He is going to answer me in a minute if I keep this up. Just note that: yes I would believe that adultery and polygamy often goes hand in hand with some sort of games. I don't think that anyone should even get into that on a seperate topic. RTG 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding controversial figures as mascots. Do you object to Jacob Frank as a mascot on the grounds that he's offensive to a specific group of people? This, perhaps, might be a key criterion re: which real human mascots are acceptable and which are not. It would certainly explain why Hitler is unacceptable, but still allow for real people with real flaws to be made into the acceptable mascots they could become. Also about the "game" issue. Many religions have or had rituals involving extramarital sex. It's just unusual for Abrahamic religions to have such rituals. However, this was supposedly a feature of the ancient Canaanite religion, among others. I can't speak for them. I think we both agree it was possible this was a game for at least some of the Frankists, but perhaps not for all of them. When in doubt, I don't think we should talk about it as a "game." --AFriedman (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously from my comment above I have views on a real person mascot and my answer will be difficult. I think that moral grounds can be avoided entirely without any loss of quality which is easier. Take that which you consider Jacobs useful points as a mascot and make something new up? No wife-swapping or anything there and you can say that he loves religious studies or something... RTG 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. --AFriedman (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a mascot to be purposely associated with any particluar religion?
It is acceptable for a Featured Article on Wikipedia's front page or a Wikipedia DYK to be purposely associated with a particular religion. It seems to be acceptable for the mascot of U-Penn (a secular school) to be the "Quaker." Why should Wikiversity be different? In Jacob Frank's case, yes he is associated with a religion, but it's somewhat ambiguous which one. --AFriedman (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a Quaker community in a city up the road from me. I used to walk past it every day and on a big sign outsde it tells us that Quaker communities are accepting of any religion. Parallel to that, most schools in my country have a Christian sect as their base. Although this has changed in the last few decades, the catholic ones are traditionally run by nuns and priests. This is a topic of much controversy today and only last week on the news there was talk about some of these schools being taken by the state because we needed some more multi-denominational schools. RTG 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Quaker communities are accepting of any religion," but are probably extra-specially-accepting when those people want to convert to Quakerism. Frankists are accepting of any religion into themselves--they believe that converting to as many different other religions as possible will erase the distinctions between them and bring about the Messiah. Frankly, I don't think Wikiversity is being taken over by one religion any time soon. That's so far off our radar screen, I haven't heard anyone even think of religious denominationalism in the context of "What Wikiversity is not"--and I was involved with the discussion of that policy last year. What country are you in, BTW? I am in the USA. --AFriedman (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in Ireland. I think that it is a valid idea that Wikiversity be non-denom outside of religious studies. But in a mascot you just made up yourself why not make one for each religion? I don't don't know but if there was plenty scope for mascots whose chose thing, like Percys marine interest, I would go with that first. The modern trend in English speaking counties seems to be leaving religion out of the classroom. I am not saying that's good or bad but is it true? Yes. There is a wider debate about that I think. RTG 03:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no quota on the number of mascots that can be created here. If we want to represent the disciplines more comprehensively, for example, this may mean creating new inanimate mascots associated with subjects such as chemistry. Future mascots could be associated with other religions, just as you brought up the possibility of associating them with other races. However, Jacob Frank is not exactly a mascot "for" any religion as it is practiced today. If we're going to choose a religious mascot, he might be about as interdenominational as they come because of his multiple conversions (from Judaism to Islam and then Christianity) and the fact that Frankism is no longer extant. Furthermore, I don't think we should give the group of mascots a noticeably religion-centered bias--mascots can be taken from any discipline and not just religious studies. One of six mascots associated with religion seems to me an acceptable ratio. I went to secular high school and we learned about religion in social studies class, essentially in the context of general history and culture. It's an important part of that area. But if half of our mascots were noticeably tied to religion, say, there might be a need to create more disciplinary balance. --AFriedman (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a mascot to appear to be of a certain racial background? It seems obvious that a mascot should be unrestricted by race but is there anything to discuss about it?
Vicky-Verity, an old mascot, are visibly White twins. However, this is an interesting issue to bring up and perhaps diversity could be a factor to take into account when developing future mascots. --AFriedman (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other relevant questions about the acceptability of mascots?

 * See also Wikiversity talk:Community Review/The making of a mascot:What are the parameters? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Links

 * Mascot contest
 * Template:Random mascot
 * Category:Random mascot template