Logo suggestions/Humorous logos
| ←historical pages | 2001 Wikipedia logo suggestions (humorous logos) | |
| [ Main | Leading candidates | Humorous logos ]
The 2001 Wikipedia logo suggestions were opened by Larry Sanger in November 2001. Several logo suggestions were submitted on this page or privately to Larry Sanger, who chose the winning logo (logo 24) with community discussion.
| ||
The images are gone again; if anyone saved copies, please upload them to the wiki!
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
[edit]
I hope that I'm chosen! --Alan D
These are funny as hell!! In ALL seriousness, one of these should be considered as the METApedia logo - maybe the "Wanna fight" or the "One billion unfinished entries." We need a sense of humour about our project. - Manning Bartlett
Ha! Charles is my favourite. --Stephen G.
- But he was just edged out by the monkeys... --STG
Actually, I must be showing my total lack of a sense of humor in finding most of these just pretty stupid, and not very funny at all. --Larry_Sanger
Hmmm... you didn't like Wikipedia Anti-Rules, either. Perhaps you don't go for self-depreciating humour? Obviously Manning and I do. Of course, we're nothing but a couple of warped bastards anyway, so what do we know? ;-) --Stephen Gilbert
Hmm, but I do like self-deprecating humor! I engage in it quite a lot! I wouldn't call either this page or the Wikipedia Anti-Rules page as funny self-deprecating humor, though. I dunno, they both strike me pretty obviously as attempts to hurt more than an attempt to poke fun at ourselves in a lighthearted fashion. Just for example, the "Wanna fight" logo is unfunny to me because it implies, or seems to imply, that we like fighting, which I don't think we really do. (I don't like it, which is a shame, because I seem to get into so much of it professionally. :-) ) The Charles logo seems to imply that we find it funny that total wackos can write for Wikipedia; er, well, I don't find that particularly funny. I find it to be a cause for concern. The Fartboy logo makes it look as if we find Fartboy funny, which, of course, he simply isn't at all. He's simply a tiresome little idiot.
You want to know what actually funny self-deprecating humor about Wikipedia would be like? Something more like "Watch out, Britannica! We won't suck for long!"
Of course I'm not trying to educate your sense of humor--no point in that. I'm just expressing my opinion here. --Larry_Sanger
No worries. I'm not here to critique your sense of humour either. But, let me tell you why I find these funny. They play on the common criticisms of Wikipedia which I consider to hold no (well, very little) water. In fact, some of these things are our strengths. These logos are exaggerations of those criticisms, blown up to absurd proporations.
- The Charles Manson logo: People say that any ol' wacko can come along and write here. Sure, but see how long wacko material lasts! It's usually gone in less than five minutes.
- "Wanna fight?": People say that such a project will amount to nothing more than a stupid collection of partisan wrangling. Yes, we have fights, but they're usually dealt with remarkably smoothly. Plus, it's a very well done Fight Club parody.
- "Fartboy": This place is going to just fill up with vandalism and nonsense, right? Wrong! We've proven that vandals find Wikipedia to be a hostile environment for their "art". Vandals do things like that for a reaction. Want to ruin their fun? Undo the damage and refuse to take them seriously.
- "A million monkeys": This one's just a play on the old monkeys at a typewriter banging out Hamlet. Things is, we know that it takes Shakespeare to write Hamlet, and it takes Wikipedians to build Wikipedia.
Someone told me something once, and it's always stuck with me: if you want to tease people, but don't want to hurt their feelings, poke fun at their strengths. That's what these mock logos do, in my opinion. All these things that people say are Wikipedia's fatal weaknesses are turning out to be our strengths. And that's what I find funny.
Wow, that was long that I expected... --user:Stephen Gilbert
I had NO intention of being mean, nor to endorse wackos, fighting or vandalism. As a matter of fact, I found fartboy's contribution hilarious, but I don't support that either. I don't think the Wikipedia is a waste of time, and I do not, Larry, think you are a fart (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.) I just wanted to have a little fun and share it with my friends. I'm sorry if some people didn't find it very funny, but in retrospect I cannot blame you for not finding jabs at your bread and butter comedic. I apologize. But to SG, you pretty much said what I wanted to convey, so thanks for putting it so succintly.
--Alan D
Sorry, Larry, but aparently you are not going to be able to find funny anything that attacks in any way wikipedia... I agree with Stephen Gilbert's analysis of whats funny in these logos...they are funny in a very mean, black way, though. I still think that you have a sense of humor, but it's completely shut down by your defensive instinct when you feel wikipedia attacked...and it's fine! we want our self apointed dictator for life defending Wikipedia against everything...(and we will with you :)) AstroNomer
I think they're hilarious. Koyaanis Qatsi
Being stuck with a zillion books to learn till next week, these logos are the highlight of my day (sorry, Larry, we're just too silly). I think both the Manson and the monkey one would make a nice logo for the meta wiki. I'd vote for the monkey one, though, because many non-U.S. people might just not make the Manson connection (it took me a while, too). --Magnus Manske
Personally, I do find some of them quite funny. I think stuff like this is essential in building a sort of "Wikipedia culture". I have been around for over 10 months now and I see the project as my second home on the web. Heh, you can't expect us to write articles 24/7 ;-) +wojpob
I want the monkey to appear on the regular logo on April Fools Day! --MichaelTinkler
Yep, Larry, you're in the minority here. I wouldn't propose actually using any of them, even on meta, but they are hilarious. Think of them as condensed commentary. --Lee Daniel Crocker
OK, OK, I do get the point. Yes, maybe I'm a little overdefensive when it comes to Wikipedia. :-) --LMS
Ok, am I the only one who likes the McDonald's parady image? That gets my vote. --ChuckSmith
Hey, where did the logos go?!!? --Chuck SMITH