Wikipedia Founder Slams Wikipedia Art

Calls artists 'trolls'

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Social Media]

Some controversy stirred up earlier this week after the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepped in on behalf of the creators of Wikipediaart.org, a site dedicated to a Wikipedia-related art project. The EFF was responding to demands by a lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent company of Wikipedia, that the artists turn over control of the domain.

Claims that the domain violated Wikimedia’s trademark and the ensuing legal back and forth have renewed the debate over fair use and free speech, and to an extent, what constitutes art. There’s even a bit of a debate over what constitutes “a threat.”

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales characterizes the project as “an alleged bit of performance art,” and the project creators, Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, as “trolls” “dedicated to vandalizing Wikipedia as a publicity stunt.” [His full statement is available as an update to an earlier article, linked below.]

The project originally took place on the Wikipedia site itself, but was quickly deleted by Wikipedia editors. Though there was some debate over whether a collaborative art project had a place in an online encyclopedia, the final agreement was that the project—also thought to be critical of Wikipedia itself—was a form of vandalism.

After the entry was deleted, Kildal and Stern registered wikipediaart.org and moved the project there. For more background on the project itself, and a discussion of art and fair use, please read “Wikipedia Art Pushes the Elastic Boundaries of Fair Use,” from earlier in the week.

On March 23, Douglas Isenberg, representing Wikimedia, sent a letter to Kildall explaining Wikimedia’s ownership of the trademark WIKIPEDIA, the company’s obligation “to enforce its legal rights” and the company’s concern there may be some confusion about Kildall’s website’s affiliation with Wikipedia itself.

Isenberg says in the letter Wikimedia asked him to investigate whether Kildall was in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), the US Federal Trademark Dilution Act, state and common law trademark and unfair competition statutes, and the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Afterward, Isenberg asks Kildall to transfer wikipediaart.org to Wikimedia, “cease using the Wikipedia trademark,” and that Wikimedia “reserves all rights and remedies of any kind or nature in connection with this matter.”

Wikipediaart.org has posted that letter, along with others, at the site, except for a series of correspondences from Mike Godwin, Wikimedia’s general counsel.

Although Isenberg’s letter sounded enough like a threat to Kildall to seek legal counsel, and his counsel seems to have agreed it sounded like a threat, and a lawyers from PublicCitizen and the EFF thought it sounded like a threat, both Isenberg in a later letter, and Wales himself, in a statement to WebProNews, say it was not actually a threat.

“The reporting on the situation was widely in error, mostly due to the EFF’s erroneous blog posting,” said Wales. “There was never a legal threat, no action of any kind, and there is no intention to take action of any kind.  We asked them politely to put up a legal notice distinguishing themselves from Wikipedia, and they did. 
”A group of trolls managed to manufacture for the media a publicity stunt. It’s disappointing how easy it was for them to pull it off.”

A disclaimer distancing the project from Wikipedia is mentioned as already in existence in the letter posted at Wikipedia Art by James Martin, original counsel for Kildall, in his original response to Isenberg on April 3, along with expressed willingness to agree on a new one.

Though Godwin’s correspondences are not posted, Public Citizen’s Paul Levy’s letters are, the final one indicating Wikipedia Art would go to court first for declaratory judgment that use of the domain constitutes fair use. This, it appears, the last correspondence.


Wikipedia Founder Slams Wikipedia Art
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog

    I’ve been close to this story since day one. You might want to read my interviews with the two artists. Are the artists ‘trolls’? I don’t think so– not anymore than some of the longtime Wikipedia editors who mark articles about artists as not notable even though the subjects of the articles have exhibited in museums and so on.




    • Guest

      clearily we must collect all of the warhol campbell soup prints and have a print burning to enforce the trademark rights of corporations over the human creative process and art.

  • antitrollfund

    Trolls with trust funds who love attention are my least favorite….

  • http://www.mywikibiz.com Gregory Kohs

    The non-profit Internet Review Corporation has twice examined this phenomenon of what constitutes art (and fair use) when it comes to Wikipedia.



    The blog is called “Akahele”, which in Hawaiian means the opposite of “Wiki”.

  • http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/ Jon Coffelt

    Scott Kildall is spelled with two L’s please

    • Rich Ord

      Fixed. Thanks.

  • Jimmy Wales

    I see it’s still easy to make up a screaming headline to create a manufactured controversy.

    Let me repeat this one more time: there’s no threat, no legal threat, no nothing going over, show’s over, nothing to see, and the people who should be most ashamed of themselves are people like the author of this article who seems to desperately want to manufacture a story where there is none.

  • Jimmy Wales

    I see it’s still easy to make up a screaming headline to create a manufactured controversy.

    Let me repeat this one more time: there’s no threat, no legal threat, no nothing going over, show’s over, nothing to see, and the people who should be most ashamed of themselves are people like the author of this article who seems to desperately want to manufacture a story where there is none.

    • anontoday

      Seems like Mr. Wales last stirred the pot by publicly dubbing the artists as “trolls”. Obviously, this whole mess has gotten under his skin.

  • http://www.xspliffic.com Olav Hovdhaugen

    So they move to a new website location and creates a domain that is a parasite to the Wikipedia name….

  • http://www.galleries-online.co.uk/gallery/ianspringham CaptSpaceBat

    The Wikipedia Art idea seems a little redundant when a visual encyclopedia is being compiled at the Art House Co-op.

    They are asking the community to submit words that will be assigned to other artists to visually interpret; in a sense, coming up with what should go in the dictionary, and someone else will be creating their own visual definition for it

    Participants will receive 5 3”x3” canvases and a list of 5 user generated words to interpret onto each canvas. The goal of the
    exhibition is to create a visual encyclopedia using mini canvases and artists from all over the world.

    See http://www.arthousecoop.com/projects/canvasproject for more details

  • http://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com/ jdcarmine

    Look, Wikipedia is actually a real encyclopedia, despite the elitist clap trap of victim liberal academics who snort about its inadequacies. This so-called art nonsense is vandalism and only gives more credence to those who denigrate Wikipedia without actually looking at it. To let this trash pretend to be consistent with Wikipedia is the worst sort of vandalism in that it is an attempt to undermine the value of the “wiki” itself.

    • Guest

      Look here people have a right to free speech, since when should be worried about being sued for slandering or copyright infringement.

      Whatever happened to freedom of speech, I thought I was told I can talk bad about someone in my own space but not in their private space because it’s their private property.

      I kinda wish that woman that got the girl to commit suiside didn’t get arrested in court because now it will be used anybody that slanders someone else.

      Our rights our going down the toilet and all people can do is defend them, defend Obama, and defend one of the private sectors and not the other.

      What ever happens to anyones rights, now it’s you must bribe policeman and politicians to be safe from the mess and be defended.

      Your an eliest like the Bilderbergs.

      Our rights are being sold away by people successfully bribing public officials.

      • Understood

        I think it is important to understand slander. If you say something against someone that is false, fabricated, etc. ; this is slander. If we did not have any laws to protect people from slander, than everyone would use freedom of speech to destroy competing businesses, individuals and with the internet, it would be easy to destroy someones life.

        With that said, only “we-the-people” seem to be subject to slander laws.
        Politicians seem to have a “Go-out-and-slander” card!

        • Guest

          Yeah well if I was telling the truth it can easily be considered false, with the way the systems going it’s better if it’s destroyed because things have got so screwed up in America anymore everyones attacking each other and wanting to do shootings.

          What if I was telling the truth and another thinks it’s false, the anti-slander laws or corrupted like s***. If I was banned from a forum I can’t speak against Sane because I have no proof.

          Anti-Slander laws means we can’t talk against Obama, it practically silences people that are victims of the president and other people so if I killed someone got completely away with it and somebody spoke against me I could sue them.

          In fact I been attacked so much I sue them and I’ll sue you for making me mad.

          I’ll sue anybody that makes me unhappy because thats what others are doing I took abuse for so long and since you say slander is wrong I’m writting a list of who to sue I can sue myyearbook, I can sue Alex Jones, I can sue everybody. Hahahahaha I can always lie and claim the other was lying and sue them for slandering.

          Maybe I’ll sue as a career, thank you for making me sue happy sue America.

    • http://www.wamcnet.blogspot.com GMHeller

      The fact that you have to state that “Wiki is no joke” is significant since Wiki is only as good as it is perceived to be by its readers.
      Frankly, a lot of people do think of Wiki as a joke.
      There are numbers of Wiki entries that simply do not meet any standards for objectivity or factuality.

      • http://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com/ jdcarmine

        I actually require my philosophy students to use Wikipedia, So long as I read the articles I require, I can point out the minor errors. But the VAST majority of what is written on philosophy is pretty damn good, better in fact than many of the other secondary sources in print.

  • stikiwiki

    This is just another example of why the Wiki world needs to review itself.

    Wiki editors have a long history of narrow minded viewpoints. If it doesn’t fit with what will make wiki a resource- in their views- it doesn’t count. If they do not want to accept a reference as valid- even though it is- they deny and delete- when questioned as to why- many editors will ban the questioner.

    Wiki is an unreliable source that can not be trusted to have a balanaced fact basis.

    as for copyright claims- isn’t wikipedia the ones who took what users contributed freely, then placed the information in a book and sold? Seems this was a copyright concern. Unless they are willing to allow that I can take their content and place in hardcopy format and profit from it.

    I use wiki as a quick reference – the check out the facts with a true resource- never using Wikipedia as a resource itself.

    In this sense- wiki has a place and value to the internet- as a dewey system similar to the library- it directs you in alimited way to some facts to answer your questions.

    All that said- I would be as happy and informed if wikipedia ceased to exist.

    • Guest

      I have encountered the same issue. You get these people on there who are utter control-freaks. I’ve never been banned because I choose to edit without a wikipedia account. I think they are afraid to outright ban IP’s since you can always get a new one from your ISP and they don’t know if they would wind up blocking an entire organization.

      If some smart person at google used their rating technology to allow people to vote on content additions so it is not in the hands of one person that would go a long way in giving people a more democratic alternative to wikipedia.org. Or vote out editors (similar to the Athenian democracy voting system of banishing the person who is most likely to become a tyrant).

      Or have editors propose a deletion and require X votes determined by a % of Y unique user views over last Z period. And if that editor becomes a nuisance he/she can get banned from the page when they reach a threshold of negative marks by users, which would be a function of total unique user views of the page they are responsible for…

      Dominik Zynis

  • http://www.hushcolours.com Jos


    It is usually said that is Art that separates humans from animals.
    However we continue to have a long “path” to achieve humanity.


  • Guest

    Artists are the shock troops of gentrification

    (Montreal Grafitti cira 2001)

  • http://members.optusnet.com.au/blupup8/ Chris Gordon

    They shouldn’t be calling themselves WikipediaANYTHING, it’s just FN BS to do that. I agree it’s like an act of vandelism. Wikipedia has a known online presence and that is built around that name as much as it’s content.

    • Triple Agree

      I agree with this comment. This is a classic “ride on the success and shirt tail of someone else”. That is the very reason of taking a TRADEMARK and adding a word. For something to do with art, they sure lack their own creativity!

    • Guest

      I agree it’s BS and isn’t it obvious trademark infringement? It’s not like they’re called Pony Art or Commonword Art. “Wikipedia” is an unusual word on its own, which doesn’t exist (?) other than because of the original website. I think Wikimedia should sue the dumbasses into the ground. I can’t believe they wouldn’t win. It would be like me opening a bar and calling it “Coca-cola Bar”.. or a computer store called “Microsoft Computer Store”. How can you just add a common word to the end of a unique term and call it fair, honest, or legally defensible?

      • Guest

        wikipedia is derived from wiki (a technology that existed prior to wikipedia.org) and encyclopedia a concept which also existed prior to this. it’s not an unusual word if you know anything about technology and were familiar with what a “wiki” is before wikipedia.org existed.

        you might as well just trademark “library” or “newspaper” or “internet” or “the Web”

        furthermore, even if it was a legit trademark like “Ford Focus”, this site is not competing with wikipedia.org…. even if they are doing it for financial gain.

        artists, writer, thinkers should have the right to make derivative works from anything in a truly free society. for example making a painting of a campbell’s soup can

        it’s called protected speech!!!!!!!! I know coming out of the Bush shock, awe & torture regime this is hard to understand for some people…

        Why do you think Campbell’s was smart enough not to try and sue Andy Warhol…. now go wrap your minds around that concept and stop trying to infringe on our 1st amendment right!

        Dominik Zynis
        Green & Corporate Social Responsibility News

        • ffelix

          Um. How about this one: the word ‘Coca’ is derived from cocaine & ‘Cola’ is taken from the cola nut, both of which are ingredients in many other products & existed before Coca-Cola came along, therefore the term can’t be trademarked.

          Stupid argument. You are sabotaging your own credibility with this fuzzy thinking. The majority of English words are similarly derived from other sources–particularly Latin roots–yet we have a system of trademark protection that seems to work well for everyone who’s not trying to suck off someone else’s success. Trademark law doesn’t apply to those who merely want to satirize or comment on that work.

          Campbell’s never had a case because Warhol’s use clearly fell in this category. Apparently what we have here is a case where it’s not so clear that these “artists” aren’t just shysters trying to parasitize someone else’s success. There’s no reason why their project’s stated goal of

    • Guest

      Vandalism destroys something. How does Wikipediaart.org destroy Wikipedia?

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  • Guest

    I just can’t overcome my own personal distrust of un-vetted opinion being presented as factual reporting/evidence. Because of the anarchic, mob rule nature of wikis there is little reason to ascribe to it any value other than the value you would allow for any one’s opinion.

    Therefore, this discussion, and the position of anyone of the commenters, is just as valid as the wiki itself. It has the same weight as those given to the students in the “Strawberry Statement”.

  • http://www.myhyperhidrosis.net Guest

    They can make a new site called “WikiArt.org” and be freaking done. It’s 10 bucks at GoDaddy. Seesh.

    • http://www.honestgamers.com/ Jason Venter

      Registering a domain name that doesn’t use WikiPedia would of course be simple and affordable, but these artists won’t do that specifically because they want to leapfrog off the success that Wikipedia has found for their own personal gain.

      That’s where copyright infringement enters the picture. It’s not considered acceptable to use someone’s web site as your own because it does lead to people believing that the two are affiliated. If someone took my web site domain and added a word on the end and called it his own, courts would uphold my request to have it removed (or at the very least, a prominent legal message displayed on each page indicating that there was no affiliation between the two).

      Whether Wikipedia is a valuable resource is open for debate, certainly, but its legal rights are not. This is not stepping on the rights of other individuals. They have a right to create their own projects. They simply can’t strip someone else of his credibility. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where things worked any differently than that, and if half of the people who have commented on this thread really thought about it, neither would they!

      • Guest

        I thought wikipedia was a word, like encyclopedia. But derived from the amalgamation of wiki (a technology) and encyclopedia (a collection of books of facts). Perhaps someone needs to contest their trademark status…. as it seems overly broad…

        Anyway its pathetic and sad to see this happening in the USA.

        I grew up in a communist dictatorship, I never thought when moving to America that I would see the natural rights of artists to create art be infringed upon by non-governmental corporate entities.

        Makes me sick to my stomach reading this.

        Dominik Zynis
        Green & Corporate Social Responsibility News

  • http://Pramuun.com TomYam

    Just wondering if people behind Pedia.com should sue “WikiPedia”? as they obviously have added the word Wiki in front of a early registered domain name that has been around loong before wikipedia was even founded.

    Damn funny to read about all these copyright infringements you guys are dealing with in the “Free world”.

    Keep me entertained….

    // TomYam

  • http://www.movie666.com/ Deke Thornton

    I love Wikipedia, but I also believe it should be challenged by artists for many good reasons. The very process by which the artists “vandalized” wikipedia speaks to the problematic nature of wikipedia itself; and the very act of being banned by wikipedia speaks to the same same thing.

    Who controls information? Who vets information? What authorities censor information? What are the boundaries in which information can be presented without being subject to a law suit? These are important questions the art project has raised, both on the page and in the resulting fallout.

  • Guest

    They are piggy-backing on the success of Wikipedia. Its a Trademark infringement FFS.

    Why not try artpedia.org or yeah wikiart.org, theres a dozen other names they could come up with, but no they would rather ride a name that has been in existence for like “Forever”. I mean do people not know how to do their homework or something?

    Wikipedia is a registered Trademark, thats it end of story find something else. It comes down to artists who are not cutting it the normal way riding a successful online name to gain recognition. You have to questiion these peoples integrity.

    Sickening is all i can say.

  • http://www.palmspringsdreamhomeraffle.com UpDog

    The argument that Wikipedia is weak because it’s crowdsourced and unregulated is lame. The history books I was taught as gospel were unregulated too and college served to undo much of what elementary and high school did. History isn’t passive or objective, Wikipedia keeps up, to criticise its imperfetions by comparing it to perfection is flawed.

    Free speech is available on every domain that has not yet been registered. Riding the coattails of someone else is not free speech, it’s theft.

    If youre message or art is worth anyone’s attention, you needn’t steal the eyeballs from someone else.

  • http://theusreport.com KayBDay

    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.

  • http://www.melbourneonline.com.au/internet-marketing.asp Mark – Internet Marketing Melbourne

    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.

  • Jimmy Wales is a bitch

    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

    • Jimmy Wales is a bitch

      AIDS or Cancer would be especially awesome.

      • Jimmy Wales is a bitch

        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.

  • Jimmy Wales is a bitch

    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.

  • Jimmy Wales is a bitch

    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.

    • Guest

      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.

      • Jimmy Wales is a bitch

        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.

        • Jimmy Wales is a bitch

          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 naivet

      • Guest

        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.

  • Chasm

    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.

    • http://hollow-welt.deviantart.com phil

      +1 ring of truth!

    • Ale Abdo


      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



      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.

  • Chasm

    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.

    • http://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com/ jdcarmine

      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.

    • http://www.brooksvillepc.com Suthnautr

      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.

  • Chasm

    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.

    • Guest

      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.

  • word up

    I herd you liek mudkipz… uh oh can’t talk now there’s a backlog at AIV

  • http://jaspert.free.fr Artist / Contemporary Rock Art Paris

    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.

  • http://www.seosean.com SEO Services

    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.

  • avantgarde

    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.

  • Guest

    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.

  • http://www.brooksvillepc.com Suthnautr

    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?

    • http://www.theinternetglassescompany.co.uk Glasses online

      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”

  • http://www.thebristolbikeproject.blogspot.com/ bike recycling bristol

    but the editors leave a lot to be desired.
    I loved reading the wikiloop they got themselves into over this.

  • http://swanbros.blogspot.com Swanie

    No wonder wikipedia is suing them. If they are not related to wikipedia at all, they can’t use the name.

  • http://www.ecologicalart.com editor

    “INTERESTED?” Maybe you can avoid all this controversy by developing instead…ECOARTPEDIA!

  • Guest

    Great post. Personally, I use Wikiperdia often, as do my kids!

  • http://www.pdfpal.org Vanessa Hughes

    Art stimulates different parts of our brains to make us laugh or incite us to riot, with a whole gamut of emotions in between. Art gives us a way to be creative and express ourselves. For some people, art is the entire reason they get out of bed in the morning. You could say “Art is something that makes us more thoughtful and well-rounded humans.” I found some good articles about arts manual at pdfpal.org.

  • http://freeonlinephotoeditor.net free online photo editor effects

    Hello, i believe that i noticed you visited my site thus i came to ?return the favor?.I’m attempting to find issues to improve my site!I suppose its adequate to use a few of your concepts!!

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom