Folks,
Ars Technica reports:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-...
Wikipedia uses plenty of copyrighted material and trademarks under the doctrine of fair use. But a trademark infringement lawsuit against a couple of artists would put the Wikimedia Foundation on the opposite side of the fair use fight.
Two artists attempted to create a performance art piece by establishing a Wikipedia entry entitled "Wikipedia Art," which could then be freely edited and "transformed" by anyone choosing to do so. The page lasted a mere 15 hours before being summarily deleted by Wikipedia editors and admins. Now, the pair's archive and continuing discussion of the project is being threatened by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, which has effectively threatened to pursue legal action against the artists for trademark infringement.
More in article
Regards
Keith
2009/4/25 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
Folks,
Ars Technica reports:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-...
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
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/25 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
Ars Technica reports: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-...
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.
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@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/25 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
Ars Technica reports: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-...
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Or even this as a comment on the AFD:
"Indeterminate. If kept, it is surely non notable and should be deleted. However if consensus tries to agree deletion this will surely be commented on by reliable sources and of significant interest and indicate to the closing admin that (CRYSTAL aside) it should be kept."
Anyone in the mood for an ancient Greek paradox? :) 'All cretans performance art endeavors are non notable' :)
FT2
On 4/27/09, FT2 ft2.wiki@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@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/25 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
Ars Technica reports: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-...
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/27/09, FT2 ft2.wiki@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@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/25 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
Ars Technica reports: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-...
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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?)
That sounds very much like applying special standards to protect us that nobody else gets. An incident involving someone causing trouble somewhere else will get an article in Wikipedia. We don't listen to complaints that the incident should go unreported because reporting it encourages people to cause trouble in other sites. Why, then, should we do this when it might encourage people to cause trouble in Wikipedia?
We actuallyin practice have quite a high bar on such things. Can you find a stable BLP article (ie one that has survived or would survive AFD) on a "notable vandal of a major website"? Zero to very few. A number of "famous for just being famous" AFD's are deleted, too.
FT2
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
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?)
That sounds very much like applying special standards to protect us that nobody else gets. An incident involving someone causing trouble somewhere else will get an article in Wikipedia. We don't listen to complaints that the incident should go unreported because reporting it encourages people to cause trouble in other sites. Why, then, should we do this when it might encourage people to cause trouble in Wikipedia?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/25/09, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/25 Keith Old keithold@gmail.com:
Ars Technica reports: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-...
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l