[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Art dispute pits artists against Wikimedia Foundation

[FT2]

On 4/27/09, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course the /real/ irony is that it now most definitely has
> significant comment in multiple independent reliable
> sources..................
>
> (Against that, 'famous for stirring up a matter to become famous'
> isn't exacltly what WP:N is about. Lasting fame by (essentially)
> trying to use WP:N norms to generate attention it most likely wouldnt
> otherwise have had, may be valid in the art world, but here, less so.
> Misuse doesnt get celebrated, no matter the nobility of its motive in
> the performance art world, by simply creating drama in its wake. Too
> abusable if so.  (Article creation on a vandal if they manage to
> vandalize wp enough to get media comment, anyone?)
>
>
> Interesting teaser though :)
>
> FT2
>
> On 4/25/09, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>>> 2009/4/25 Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>> Ars Technica reports:
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars
>>
>>> As mentioned in the further reading of that article, this has already
>>> been discussed on foundation-l. See Mike Godwin's response here:
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051505.html
>>
>>
>> Also, the article has been rewritten. It took a day of me and others
>> going "wtf" in the comments before they even put that much of the WMF
>> side.
>>
>> Number of tech press who ran an article on this who contacted WMF for
>> comment: 0.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>