iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising
| Advertisement |
| Popular WPN Business Resources |
 |
 |
|
|
|
-
Reaching Your Audience Through Online Video
Internet video is continuing to grow by leaps and bounds. -
Yahoo Reveals SEM of Re-Brand
Near the end of September, Yahoo began a new branding campaign in an... -
Search + Social = Better ROI
Are you utilizing search and social media together? According to Lee...
     |
65 Comments
Great post. Personally, I
Great post. Personally, I use Wikiperdia often, as do my kids!
ECOARTPEDIA
"INTERESTED?" Maybe you can avoid all this controversy by developing instead...ECOARTPEDIA!
No wonder wikipedia is suing
No wonder wikipedia is suing them. If they are not related to wikipedia at all, they can't use the name.
Wiki is great
but the editors leave a lot to be desired.
I loved reading the wikiloop they got themselves into over this.
Any Publicity is Good Publicity
Wikipedia's founder should know that when the high and mighty speak - it will instantly draw attention, and what better way to gain attention than to post those words on the "offending" site?
I wonder if maybe now there will be a page on Wikipedia about this?
not all publicity is good
It really does depend to be honest, I think that you need to eb carefull.... publicity stunts this obvious just make you think "what a bunch of idiots"
Lawyers should be defensive tools.
It's okey to delete. It's okey to be pissed off about persistence and the domain name. But for wikipedia (and other such ventures) to set lawyers on somebody is just plain wrong.
controversial art
good, cutting edge art has always been controversial. When Impressionist artists hit the scene in Paris, the old guard hated their work. They were probably called the 19th century French equivalent of "trolls"
check it out: the irony is that there is now a Wikipedia page about the controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art_Controversy_2009
Wikipedia is a Troll
First off Wikipedia can't be calling anyone a Troll, most of the content on their site is so inaccurate it's ridiculous and when you go to correct it it get's reverted back. I do have a degree is the field of study that I tried to correct on their and I got banned because they said I was adding information that was "not correct". Where do they come off with that? They don't have a degree in these subjects, were did the editors/admins get their doctorate at?
Purposely giving people inaccurate data seems pretty troll like to me. So we could make the leap and say Wikipedia is the troll.
Second artist are the future of our society - they come up with the ideas that inspire us and from that we develop further as a group and society. Attacking them and calling them a troll just shows his lack of understanding about artists. If anything, an artist should be given and supported with everything he or she needs - again without them we don't have a future as they create it.
That's wicked !
Why whimper about this wildfire, he whispered whistfully, whichever winded wigging willingly wins this wicked trial, it's just a whiningly windbag wheezing, willing to whip whichever whimsy whiff of wild witchery within the wide world, but willynilly the wily artists'wit will wilily wind around the whistfull witholders of wiseness.
With best wishes.
Hai
I herd you liek mudkipz... uh oh can't talk now there's a backlog at AIV
Didn't Wales start his .com career with porn sites?
Now I could be wrong, but I've read that Wales first made big money hosting or running a porn site. The kind that nabs images and videos from other such sites. Kinda interesting that he took that same concept and meshed it in the way that he has. Nabbing sources and images and so on. If I'm wrong about his past work do correct me but it is kinda funny to point out considering that Wikipedia kinda runs in the same way. It would not be without existing material online.
You are wrong. He ran a web
You are wrong. He ran a web directory / search engine like Yahoo, but with branding specifically designed to appeal to men - like Maxim Magazine.
There is no evidence that it ever made much money.
jdcarmine, Wikipedia is a
jdcarmine, Wikipedia is a "real" encyclopedia compared to what? I have personally seen hundreds of bio errors on that site. I'm not a college professor nor do I have a degree, but I can understand why almost every college out their bans Wikipedia as a source for papers. It can be a good starting point, but that is about it.
Nonsense can be art. Art is subjective. Not only that but there is this crazy idea floating around called new media which can indeed involve art like this. Art reflects society so what better way to capture our time than to challenge the very concept of a site that is quickly becoming culturally iconic in the US. The internet can be so many things including a canvas.
Logic and Reason vs Art
Oh, you're just trying to use logic and reason to make a valid point, and you're doing so using both correct spelling and English grammar. How is THAT supposed to convince anyone of anything? :)
You've got to admit though that (as underhanded a tactic as it may be) when a somewhat skewed Wikipedia topic can help win an argument, it is useful. It was a Troll that tried (unsuccessfully) to stop the The Three Billy Goats Gruff from crossing the bridge. It looks like maybe Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales shouldn't have bothered coming out from under that bridge to stop Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern. After all, isn't that a big part of the reason why we know about them now?
Well, looks like we have a new bedtime story to tell the children.
Wikipedia rocks
I am a professor, and I require my students to read Wikipedia articles that I have also read. They are VASTLY more right than wrong. In fact I think it is foolish not to begin any research by starting with Wikipedia. On many issues in philosophy it is actually better than many published sources.
This is why the free culture
This is why the free culture crowd fails. The strongest supporters of weak copyright are the same people who race to defend their rights under current copyright and trademark laws when THEIR BUSINESS is used openly. Wikipedia is not a business per se, but the idea still applies. Every strong free culture supporter I know of, including visual artists, are quick to defend their rights under current law while at the same time working with groups like the Fair Use Project to destroy those very rights!
If copyright and trademark laws were weakened in favor of those who exploit the laws you would not see a new era of creativity and discover you would see regurgitated concepts more so than what we endure now. Any trendy product, site, or work of art would quickly have a hundred different versions and in the end the public would be very confused on who created what originally. It would be like cultural stagnation. But so many people want that or think they want that. It is easy to want that when you have not fed your family with your trade or skill. Though I guess some feed their families by working toward that end.
Trademark not Copyright
Ni!
Trademark and copyright are fundamentally different things.
Copyright excludes people from a non-rival resource: content.
I can share with you my idea and still use it myself.
Trademark excludes people from a rival resource: identity.
If I let you share my identity, you can abuse my reputation and diminish it.
That's why it is coherent to support free culture and defend trademarks.
Trademaks are identity, and identity exists to represent individuals, in this case the wikipedia community, therefore it cannot be dissociated from it the same way a picture can be dissociated from the paper it was printed on.
Most free culture activists do not dispute classical property of rival goods. But they could, both positions are coherent because those are separate issues.
And even beyond that, in law trademarks exist to protect users (I believe the old term was "consumers") from being mislead.
For example, because it is natural to assume something called "wikipediaart" is in some way endorsed by the wikipedia community, shares its principles, etc. You could start contributing, you could donate money, and only later find out it's something else.
Again, the need for such protection and fitness in this particular case can be disputed, but the point is that consumers rights is an even more clearly separate issue from free culture.
Bottom line, free culture and trademarks are very different issues, and any combination of positions is coherent.
In fact, you can even be against both if your position is that consumers rights are unecessary and that strong copyright laws are enough to guarantee brand integrity. Though that would be a creepy world to live in. : )P
Hugs,
ale
~~
PS: Personally, I'm in favor of their use of the wikipediaart.org domain name, specially with the disclaimer. I find no amusement in the use of a page in Wikipedia as a permanent performance arena in disagreement with the effort of the community there, and understand the deletion as appropriate. However, I would love to see the Wikipedia Art concept realized in its own wiki.
+1 ring of truth!
+1 ring of truth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Werdna <--- Notice the average admin on wiki is an underage, uneducated, foreign piece of shit? I wouldn't be surprised if he's Jimmy's underage cabin boy.
In Australia, 18 = legally
In Australia, 18 = legally an adult. "Werdna" is a dual-citizen of both Australia and the USA - does that still count as a "foreign piece of shit"? Let's not forget that white Americans and Australians both originated from the same place. Ahd how did you come to the conclusion that he's uneducated? Troll elsewhere, dumbass.
If I recall correctly,
If I recall correctly, Werdna said he was a citizen of Wiki USA and Australia, not the nations of USA and Australia
He's a kid.
He's 18 NOW. However, he's
He's 18 NOW. However, he's been an admin since 2005, when he would've been 14-15.
The average admin on wikipedia is 18 or under and has no credentials whatsoever.
It's particularly important
It's particularly important to note that this underage idiot was the one who issued the delete for the process. What a brat. It must be really nice to be able to leech off Jimmy Wales for admin access and money and then support an elitist agenda based on your own naiveté.
Also, the reason Jimmy Wales
Also, the reason Jimmy Wales is mad is because there's no original content allowed on wikipedia. He's the only one allowed to effectively steal from credible sources - If someone steals from Carnegie or MIT, and gives to Wikipedia, it's awesome, but God forbid someone steals from Wikipedia.
Jimmy Wales is a snob and his karma will get him soon, fucking piece of shit.
Wikipedia sucks anyways, for
Wikipedia sucks anyways, for the most part. It should be vandalized - It's proof of what happens when a community inflates a nothing site into a million dollar business, people turn into snobs. With any luck, Jimmy Wales will get terminally ill in the next 6 months
AIDS or Cancer would be
AIDS or Cancer would be especially awesome.
He's the ultimate snob,
He's the ultimate snob, wikipedia is simply a collage of borrowed material used to promote his own ego, like the hood ornament on a BMW or Benz. It exists only to make him money, it really doesn't contribute anything because there is no original content on Wikipedia, only summarizations of original content. Wikipedia is the ultimate plagiarism.
Black Flag Legion, we're going to be everywhere this year. Expect us.
Artist Idiots
It seems that modern teaching of art defines art as anything you think it might be. So if I decide to wear my shirt backwards everyone should consider that to be amazing as long as I do it in the name of art.
I hold this view with mild contempt for "artists" who think this way but I usually keep it to myself. In this case however, these morons have decided that they can use a well-known corporate like Wikipedia to publish their "art".
Clearly Wikipedia does not exist for this purpose. They have every right to delete the content.
As for using their name in their URL, did they really think that was going to happen without causing friction? What if I were to register kmartart.com? I would expect to have that domain taken from me. Why would Wikipedia protect their brand with any less vigilance?
This seems like a poorly thought out idea by novice guerilla artists. Let's hope we don't see them grow into anything more.
US Constitution
EFF is right--the art "vandals" are within their rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. If the "encyclopedia" has its way, what would you do about sites like The Drudge Retort? That site definitely pegs its existence to the well-known news site. There are many others that do the same thing--not only on the Web but in entertainment. Where would Saturday Night Live be without parody?
Wikipediaart has every right to do what they're doing. To usurp that right would tread on one of the most important rights Americans have.
And if you take what you read at an Open Source encyclopedia is gospel, I'd suggest you verify what you read by going to original government docs and to archived newspapers and other publications. Wikipedia has a well-known ideological bent.
Post new comment