Changes

Several weeks ago, I wrote an article here about [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ Wikipedia and Art], which discussed aspects of the [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ Wikipedia Art project].

Several weeks ago, I wrote an article here about [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ Wikipedia and Art], which discussed aspects of the [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ Wikipedia Art project].

 

[[Image:180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg|thumb|left|alt="Wikipedia Art logo|Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project]]

 

<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg" alt="Wikipedia Art logo" /></td>

<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project</td>

This performance art project started by artists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created quite [http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713 a bit of discussion] in the Art world, both negative and positive.  The reaction in the Wikipedia world was, of course, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art completely predictable]. The project has regained a place in Wikipedia article space (at least until the ''deletion hit squad'' reads this article), through what is being now called the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art_controversy Wikipedia Art controversy]".

This performance art project started by artists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created quite [http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713 a bit of discussion] in the Art world, both negative and positive.  The reaction in the Wikipedia world was, of course, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art completely predictable]. The project has regained a place in Wikipedia article space (at least until the ''deletion hit squad'' reads this article), through what is being now called the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art_controversy Wikipedia Art controversy]".

A3: The Wikimedia Foundation projects are free of advertising, and we don't expect that will ever change. However, under the free license used by the Wikimedia projects, it has always been permissible for other entities to republish Wikimedia project content, and add advertisements to it. Many organizations have done this. Our mission is to disseminate educational materials as widely as possible; we are happy to partner with both non-commercial and commercial entities to achieve that goal.

A3: The Wikimedia Foundation projects are free of advertising, and we don't expect that will ever change. However, under the free license used by the Wikimedia projects, it has always been permissible for other entities to republish Wikimedia project content, and add advertisements to it. Many organizations have done this. Our mission is to disseminate educational materials as widely as possible; we are happy to partner with both non-commercial and commercial entities to achieve that goal.

Within this partnership '''we have agreed that Orange will place targeted marketing alongside the branded Wikimedia content it will republish on the Orange mobile and web platforms. '''</blockquote>

Within this partnership '''we have agreed that Orange will place targeted marketing alongside the branded Wikimedia content it will republish on the Orange mobile and web platforms.'''</blockquote>

Although these two situations, ''Wikipedia Art'' and the Orange agreement, do not seem at the surface to be related, they come to pass at approximately the same time.  This perceived change in attitude from the traditional "free culture" outlook to a more "bottom line, business-oriented" perspective seems to be interconnected in a very profound way.

Although these two situations, ''Wikipedia Art'' and the Orange agreement, do not seem at the surface to be related, they come to pass at approximately the same time.  This perceived change in attitude from the traditional "free culture" outlook to a more "bottom line, business-oriented" perspective seems to be interconnected in a very profound way.

So, Akahele salutes Kildall and Stein for creating this situation in which the ''reality'' of the Wikimedia Foundation has been so clearly illustrated.

So, Akahele salutes Kildall and Stein for creating this situation in which the ''reality'' of the Wikimedia Foundation has been so clearly illustrated.

'''Image credits:'''

===Image credits===

*Wikipedia Art logo, [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ GFDL License].

    <li>Wikipedia Art logo, [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ <span class="comment">GFDL License</span>].</li>

==Comments==

==Comments==

;Kato

 

:Wikipedia governance is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. And it is aggressive at every turn, pushing any of its many positions.

:The most obvious flaw is the empty rhetorical cry of “No Censorship” when in reality, the same Wikipedia editors “censor” and mould facts every minute of the day. They aggressively laud the “No Censorship” fallacy one minute, then aggressively edit out “unencyclopedic” content the next.

 

:Wikipedians often bandy around rallying cries denouncing Copyright and see themselves as at the vanguard of “Free Culture”. So it comes as no surprise that on the other hand, Wikipedia has become more aggressively ruthless in the protection of its own Copyright.

Kato    

:Such contradictions are typical. One could spend a week noting them all and only scratch the surface.

Wikipedia governance is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. And it is aggressive at every turn, pushing any of its many positions.

;Paul Wehage       

 

:And another predictable thing has happened: The “Wikipedia Art Controversy” article is up for deletion..

The most obvious flaw is the empty rhetorical cry of “No Censorship” when in reality, the same Wikipedia editors “censor” and mould facts every minute of the day. They aggressively laud the “No Censorship” fallacy one minute, then aggressively edit out “unencyclopedic” content the next.

:One choice quote:

 

:Comment. Their site has a collation of news reports, which may be an easy way to find reliable sources on this story:[1]. It’s an interesting exercise: create a website potentially infringing on Wikipedia’s trademark, create a page about it on Wikipedia, blog about its deletion and start a controversy about Wikipedia apparently censoring art, gaining coverage enough to make the story notable… Fences and windows (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians often bandy around rallying cries denouncing Copyright and see themselves as at the vanguard of “Free Culture”. So it comes as no surprise that on the other hand, Wikipedia has become more aggressively ruthless in the protection of its own Copyright.

:So, apparently, Kildall and Stein are doing this to be able to have an article in Wikipedia….never mind that they already DO have articles in Wikipedia.  It just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT

 

;Fences and windows       

Such contradictions are typical. One could spend a week noting them all and only scratch the surface.

:*Ahem* Paul, I didn’t argue for deletion. Quit the Wikilawyering. I was just commenting on the circular nature of what they are up to. The “Wikipedia Art controversy” is (sadly) notable thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation’s footbullet of sending lawyers’ letters. I don’t think that Wikipedia Art are right to try to ride on the fame of the Wikipedia name, but perhaps the best approach would have been to give them the cold shoulder. Do not feed the trolls, as the saying goes.

 

:The original deletion of the page about Wikipedia Art was quite correct, and if the creators didn’t see it coming then they’re amazingly naive. Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia – it has a sandbox to play in for test edits, but this was plain old vandalism. If I shit on your doorstep, I don’t expect you to frame it and call it a work of art. The reaction to the deletion has been wounded pride among the art community because Wikipedia could see that these Emperors of art had no clothes on.

Paul Wehage       

:These artists might think they’re being creative with their little “intervention”, but they’re put in the shade by the hackers from 4chan, many of whom are younger than the 18-year-old Wikipedia editor who deleted the Wikipedia Art page – I find the focus on his age in the reaction to the deletion distasteful.

And another predictable thing has happened: The “Wikipedia Art Controversy” article is up for deletion..

:4channers recently hacked the Time 100 online poll using scripts. Not only did their founder, moot, “win” the poll, but the initials of the top results even spelled out “Marblecake also the Game”. Now that is much more creative than anything I’ve seen from Wikipedia Art. There’s a section on the Time 100 Wikipedia page if you want to read more, including the meaning of the message.

 

;Paul Wehage       

One choice quote:

:I find it ironic that this Wikipedia anon is trying to inform me of something (the Time 100/4Chan business) that we here at Akahele have been discussing for the past week–I believe that tomorrow’s post by Judd Bagley will discuss this subject. It was almost the subject of my article last week, but being involved in the Arts myself, I found that the Wikipedia Art situation merited more immediate attention.

 

:The Wikipedia Art situation is yet another instance of Kool-aid drinkers who are engaging in  moving the goalposts because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Whether you personally believe that Wikipedia Art is important or not, the controversy that it generated is clearly notable under the criteria that you (as part of the Wikipedia community) have established for inclusion.  It more than meets those criteria. Kildall and Stein are also clearly notable artists.

Comment. Their site has a collation of news reports, which may be an easy way to find reliable sources on this story:[1]. It’s an interesting exercise: create a website potentially infringing on Wikipedia’s trademark, create a page about it on Wikipedia, blog about its deletion and start a controversy about Wikipedia apparently censoring art, gaining coverage enough to make the story notable… Fences and windows (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

:If you don’t like the fact that Wikipedia Art is now clearly notable, then complain to the WMF legal staff who created this situation by sending what appears to be an ill-considered letter to the artists threatening a lawsuit which goes against the entire philosophical base upon which Wikipedia rests.  The agreement with Orange is yet another manifestation of this same philosophical mutation.

 

:As far as pointing out that somebody is only 18 and is acting like a child, that seems to me to be a fairly objective statement, since someone who is 18 (or younger) may still be psychologically a child.  That this person is allowed to be in a position of authority on this sort of website will be the subject of future posts here.  If you’re offended by this statement, I’m sure that you’ll be even more offended by this post.  Age and experience DO count, sorry.

So, apparently, Kildall and Stein are doing this to be able to have an article in Wikipedia….never mind that they already DO have articles in Wikipedia.  It just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT

:…and your point was?  You seem to be suggesting that Kildall and Stein started the Wikipedia Art Controversy article themselves as a means of generating, uh, drama?

 

:Can you give me any concrete proof that would suggest that this statement is true? Are you suggesting that Kildall and Stein are using sockpuppets on Wikipedia à la Wordbomb?

Fences and windows       

:Leaving aside the fact that Wordbomb turned out to be right, how much of this idea was generated by the us against them party line that permeates so much of WikiLife?

*Ahem* Paul, I didn’t argue for deletion. Quit the Wikilawyering. I was just commenting on the circular nature of what they are up to. The “Wikipedia Art controversy” is (sadly) notable thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation’s footbullet of sending lawyers’ letters. I don’t think that Wikipedia Art are right to try to ride on the fame of the Wikipedia name, but perhaps the best approach would have been to give them the cold shoulder. Do not feed the trolls, as the saying goes.

;Nihiltres       

 

:@Paul Wehage: While I disagree with other points in your article and posts on this page, I think that you’re particularly wrong when it comes to your point about WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The original deletion of the page about Wikipedia Art was quite correct, and if the creators didn’t see it coming then they’re amazingly naive. Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia – it has a sandbox to play in for test edits, but this was plain old vandalism. If I shit on your doorstep, I don’t expect you to frame it and call it a work of art. The reaction to the deletion has been wounded pride among the art community because Wikipedia could see that these Emperors of art had no clothes on.

:Wikipedia Art’s primary problem was that it was something made up one day (WP:NFT), though it was also a self-reference (WP:SELFREF), and various points of what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). All of these were around long before Wikipedia Art, so your suggestion that Wikipedians were “moving the goalposts” is clearly false.

 

:I don’t endorse the summary given for Werdna’s deletion of the page (it wasn’t correct), but I do endorse the deletion itself—not because Wikipedia Art was bad (it was interesting!), or because I don’t like it, but because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia under the established standards.

These artists might think they’re being creative with their little “intervention”, but they’re put in the shade by the hackers from 4chan, many of whom are younger than the 18-year-old Wikipedia editor who deleted the Wikipedia Art page – I find the focus on his age in the reaction to the deletion distasteful.

 

4channers recently hacked the Time 100 online poll using scripts. Not only did their founder, moot, “win” the poll, but the initials of the top results even spelled out “Marblecake also the Game”. Now that is much more creative than anything I’ve seen from Wikipedia Art. There’s a section on the Time 100 Wikipedia page if you want to read more, including the meaning of the message.

 

Paul Wehage       

I find it ironic that this Wikipedia anon is trying to inform me of something (the Time 100/4Chan business) that we here at Akahele have been discussing for the past week–I believe that tomorrow’s post by Judd Bagley will discuss this subject. It was almost the subject of my article last week, but being involved in the Arts myself, I found that the Wikipedia Art situation merited more immediate attention.

 

The Wikipedia Art situation is yet another instance of Kool-aid drinkers who are engaging in  moving the goalposts because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Whether you personally believe that Wikipedia Art is important or not, the controversy that it generated is clearly notable under the criteria that you (as part of the Wikipedia community) have established for inclusion.  It more than meets those criteria. Kildall and Stein are also clearly notable artists.

 

If you don’t like the fact that Wikipedia Art is now clearly notable, then complain to the WMF legal staff who created this situation by sending what appears to be an ill-considered letter to the artists threatening a lawsuit which goes against the entire philosophical base upon which Wikipedia rests.  The agreement with Orange is yet another manifestation of this same philosophical mutation.

 

As far as pointing out that somebody is only 18 and is acting like a child, that seems to me to be a fairly objective statement, since someone who is 18 (or younger) may still be psychologically a child.  That this person is allowed to be in a position of authority on this sort of website will be the subject of future posts here.  If you’re offended by this statement, I’m sure that you’ll be even more offended by this post.  Age and experience DO count, sorry.

 

…and your point was?  You seem to be suggesting that Kildall and Stein started the Wikipedia Art Controversy article themselves as a means of generating, uh, drama?

 

Can you give me any concrete proof that would suggest that this statement is true? Are you suggesting that Kildall and Stein are using sockpuppets on Wikipedia à la Wordbomb?

 

Leaving aside the fact that Wordbomb turned out to be right, how much of this idea was generated by the us against them party line that permeates so much of WikiLife?

 

Nihiltres       

@Paul Wehage: While I disagree with other points in your article and posts on this page, I think that you’re particularly wrong when it comes to your point about WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

 

Wikipedia Art’s primary problem was that it was something made up one day (WP:NFT), though it was also a self-reference (WP:SELFREF), and various points of what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). All of these were around long before Wikipedia Art, so your suggestion that Wikipedians were “moving the goalposts” is clearly false.

 

I don’t endorse the summary given for Werdna’s deletion of the page (it wasn’t correct), but I do endorse the deletion itself—not because Wikipedia Art was bad (it was interesting!), or because I don’t like it, but because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia under the established standards.