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

[FT2]

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
>