Slashdot Mirror

"you mistakenly state that Wikimedia wants âoeto suppress free speech by threatening legal action.â The truth is that Wikipedia has not threatened any legal action" -- http://wikipediaart.org/legal/040909-WikimediaResponse.html

Let me get this straight: Wikipedia is run by 18-year-old Australians? who talk in gobbledegook?

"...originality has been rejected by art. There is no such thing. It's all just different forms of appropriation. So it seems to me that Wikipedia is a perfect place to expose the current state of affairs"

M'kay. Perhaps in Mr. Mecklenburg's art-philosophy opinion notebook it is, but not in mine and I feel relatively assured that this guy might have just took a big dump on that book were he still alive.

Still, Wikipedia needs to back off now that it's won on it's own site; squelching a .org is just, well, bad form.

wikipediaart is some "action artist" trying to boost his "art" by attaching himself to wikipedia popularity. He was asked to clarify that his site is not affiliated with wikipedia, and to not use wikipedia proper as his "canvas". Noone ever threatend him or tried to forcefully take away the domain:

http://wikipediaart.org/legal/040909-WikimediaResponse.html

The EFF fell for subsequent BS from said "artist", and so did the Slashdot editor (and most of you, apparently).

The domain name is only one thing, perhaps the least deceitful aspect. I did actually visit http://wikipediaart.org/ and then http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page and was very surprised to find it describes and refers to itself as "Wikipedia Art". There is a disclaimer "This web site documents a performance art work that promotes a critical view of Wikipedia. It is not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way." I'm English and reasonably literate and I remain uncertain what that is supposed to mean. Perhaps it isn't supposed to mean anything tangible. Would the authors referring to themselves as "Wikipedia Art" ten times on the same page suggests that their disclaimer is insincere?

Apparently they had an idea for a collaborative work of art, wished it to be part of Wikipedia and created a Wikipedia article to fulfil this wish. Wikipedia, within hours, declined to host their project and removed it. Now the 'artists' feel they are justified in trading on the Wikipedia name and claiming oppression. It looks to me like a group of pompous blowhards having a tantrum.

There is no sign of any artistic endeavour unless hysterical hissy fits can be considered art.

The domain name is only one thing, perhaps the least deceitful aspect. I did actually visit http://wikipediaart.org/ and then http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page and was very surprised to find it describes and refers to itself as "Wikipedia Art". There is a disclaimer "This web site documents a performance art work that promotes a critical view of Wikipedia. It is not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way." I'm English and reasonably literate and I remain uncertain what that is supposed to mean. Perhaps it isn't supposed to mean anything tangible. Would the authors referring to themselves as "Wikipedia Art" ten times on the same page suggests that their disclaimer is insincere?

Apparently they had an idea for a collaborative work of art, wished it to be part of Wikipedia and created a Wikipedia article to fulfil this wish. Wikipedia, within hours, declined to host their project and removed it. Now the 'artists' feel they are justified in trading on the Wikipedia name and claiming oppression. It looks to me like a group of pompous blowhards having a tantrum.

There is no sign of any artistic endeavour unless hysterical hissy fits can be considered art.

It's actually fun, if you read the first letter, the law company is alleging cybersquatting, trademark infrigement and requests the domain to be transferred to them. So it seem to read like your standard C&D letter. But, (and here is where fun starts) if you read it really carefully, they really don't allege anything, and don't demand anything. They know they have no leg to stand on. "You know, we were asked to investigate, and you know, cybersquatting, blahblah, trademarks, blahblah, so if you want you may transfer the domain to us, you know". They acknowledge it themselves in their second letter. This is why people hate lawyers and the legalese, it looks like it says something else than it really is.

It's actually fun, if you read the first letter, the law company is alleging cybersquatting, trademark infrigement and requests the domain to be transferred to them. So it seem to read like your standard C&D letter. But, (and here is where fun starts) if you read it really carefully, they really don't allege anything, and don't demand anything. They know they have no leg to stand on. "You know, we were asked to investigate, and you know, cybersquatting, blahblah, trademarks, blahblah, so if you want you may transfer the domain to us, you know". They acknowledge it themselves in their second letter. This is why people hate lawyers and the legalese, it looks like it says something else than it really is.