Nathan writes:
Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions
> underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation
> pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner?
I can answer that question -- it's wholly unrelated to the recent Board
statement on trademarks. Our concern was not primarily about trademarks.
Some background: The Wikipedia Art site, which was registered last year,
was operated by performance artists who (apparently) hoped to use Wikipedia
as a staging ground for a performance art project that involved creating
articles on Wikipedia and creating links, both internal and external, that
"proved" or "verified" the notability of the Wikipedia Art project. (This is
documented on their website.)
When the would-be artists attempted to use Wikipedia in this fashion, our
community of editors shut them down very quickly. At the same time,
however, some editors also expressed concern that the
wikipediaart.orgdomain name would be seen as somehow affiliated with
our projects,
especially since the artists were trying to edit content directly on
Wikipedia. So, after listening to our editors' feedback, we sent a letter to
Wikipedia Art that was aimed, not to threaten legal action, but to outline
what our legal concerns were, and to try to begin a negotiation to resolve
the matter amicably -- ideally by switching the domain name over to us, but
not by requiring any content changes on their site at all.
We of course entirely support the site owners' prerogative to comment on and
criticize Wikipedia. Our concern was that the Wikipedia Art project
presented itself as a way for individuals to contribute to Wikipedia
directly -- possibly by providing inaccurate reference information -- and,
in doing so, might seem to express an affiliation with us. We note also
that Wikipedia itself is hosts quite a bit of art, and reference materials
about art, and there was some concern about how this would play out in
search-engine results. We are pleased that the project, after we contacted
them about this matter, has chosen to publish a disclaimer disassociating
itself more clear from our projects, and that they have ceased in their
attempts to use Wikipedia as a staging ground for their performance art
projects.
Unsurprisingly, the artists, who enjoyed making a fuss with their initial
perfomance-art project, are hoping to make a fuss about our having contacted
them at all. We anticipated precisely this reaction, of course, which is
why our initial letter to Wikipedia Art, now posted on their website, talks
about resolving the matter amicably and asks the artists to respect and
understand our concerns. In other words, it's about the gentlest "demand
letter" one can possibly write. We're pleased it led to positive results
(the disclaimer). We always figured they might post our communications with
them.
With regard to Wikipedia Review: when I spoke with my friends at EFF about
this matter some weeks ago, they asked the same question. I pointed out
that we at Wikimedia Foundation actually rather love Wikipedia Review -- I
for one read it for its entertainment value -- and that in any case no one
reading Wikipedia Review would ever be under the impression that they're
affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.
In a nutshell: Wikipedia editors brought the issue of the domain name to
our attention, we corresponded with the Wikipedia Arts folks, raising domain
name and trademark issues, and the result was a prominent disclaimer. No
litigation was threatened or commenced.
Last time I spoke with my EFF counterparts about this, the conversation was
entirely friendly and collegial. We disagreed on some matters, but I pointed
out that if someone decided to use the EFF website as a staging ground for a
performance art piece, I'd entirely support their efforts to prevent
anyone's confusing the artists' work with their own.
Please feel free to ask me any further questions about this.
--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation