Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Threatens Artists For Fair Use
Hugh Pickens writes "Can a noncommercial website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not. The EFF reports that Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern have created a noncommercial website at Wikipediaart.org intended to comment on the nature of art and Wikipedia. Since 'Wikipedia' is a trademark owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Foundation has demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably or it will attempt to take it by legal force. 'Wikipedia should know better. There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here,' writes the EFF's Corynne McSherry. 'Moreover, even if US trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists' use of the mark is an obvious fair use.' It is hard to see what Wikipedia gains by litigating this matter, but easy to see how they lose."
Load and aim at foot
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
Am I the only one to think that Wikipediaart looks Dutch? Probably the double A.
You just got troll'd!
Does anyone think he would get away with creating "CryslerArt.com" ?
WikipediaArt.org is not different.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Am I the only one who laughed after reading this?
Wikipedia seemed to be the ultimate spot on the Internet for free thought and the sharing of ideas. Are they really so worried about public image that they cannot stand to a little criticism on their model?
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
iI is hard to see what Wikipedia gains by litigating this matter but easy to see how they lose.
It is easy to see how they lose if they don't defend it also.
... now imagine I use that same domain to host a mirror of Wikipedia.org and push to steal their market share. I advertise and insert tiny little advertisements and I am commercial. And suddenly the good folks at Wikipedia are out of luck. Wouldn't you want them to be able to protect that which they've established?
Ok, not to defend them but just to get you thinking about their perspective, they are attempting to protect their name. Not profits or anything really evil, just their name.
What would you say if I wrote a mischievous program and hosted it at iwikipedia.org? Wouldn't you want them to be able to go after me and shut me down?
Ok, so that's an extreme case
So for malicious intent or even just to protect what they've created, I think they should be able to sue wikipediaart.org but I would hope they could just ask them to change the name to wikiartrights.org or artonwikis.org?
They probably would qualify for fair use if the site wasn't a wikimedia site. In this case, Wikipedia is concerned about people misunderstanding that the site is hosted and part of the wikipedia suite (or commons or whatever they call it). I think they would have no problem with the name if it had a different layout/format or if the name was different and it looked just like that. I don't know how this qualifies as fair use and Wikipedia may have a point in their fear that people would misunderstand the site.
My work here is dung.
Does anyone think he would get away with creating "CryslerArt.com" ?
I don't see why not. "ChryslerArt.com" might be a little more problematic.
Man oh man, does it get any better than this? I'm gonna go pop some corn...
With the full understanding that this is for a court to decide, the domain name in this case is too similar. Regardless of any one-line disclaimer about not being affiliated with Wikipedia, it still seems too much like it would be an art website operated by Wikipedia. If you accept that PETA.org should belong to the PETA that puts naked chicks in cages on the street and not the PETA that goes through a lot of barbecue sauce (which a lot of people don't) then you have to accept that this domain name is confusing. A domain like "wikipediasucks.com" would make it clear that it was commentary about wikipedia. A domain like "Wikipediaart" makes it look too much like art affiliated with Wikipedia. Your whole front page would have to be a disclaimer given the average human -- I could see easily misinterpreting the top sentence in the pre-coffee boost phase and deciding that they WERE affiliated.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Something more in tune with the Slashdot world: http://www.microsoftsucks.org/, and also: http://applesucks.org/
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Okay. it looks like Wikipedia. The name is similar to Wikipedia. It's not obvious that it's criticism. Even the content appears to be more transformative than critical.
No problem with what they're doing but make it more obvious that this isn't part of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia Is Rotten From the Top to the Bottom.
Like all rots, Wikipedia's started at the top. "Jimbo" Wales is manifestly unable to run such an important organisation. The rampant and crippling deletionism, bureaucracy, cliques, misinformation, disinformation, bias, political games, scandals, corruption and more can all be traced back to Wales. His inability and indeed, unwillingness to properly manage the site and the problems that face it have led, inevitably to the Wikipedia we have today, and will surely lead to even further degeneration. Under his watch, it has been the most duplicitous and mean spirited individuals who have risen to prominence, while the better part of its membership has left in disgust.
Wikipedia is now making forays into copyright and trademark infringement threats to bully its offsite opponents. They have to; The logic of their position demands it. If ever anything went against the spirit of copyleft and the creative commons, this is it. The Wikipedia crowd is now utterly corrupt and in no way resembles any other open source community. It is closed minded, hostile to change, riddled with bureaucracy, hostile to outsiders and new members, and now is turning its back on the very principles on which it was founded.
Wikipedia has changed. It is rotten. The altruism and goodwill of the millions who edited is ebbing away as the site stabilizes. Soon there will not be enough to stem the tide of contempt that the Wikipedians have for anyone who disagrees with them. The change has been gradual, but concrete. The goodwill party is over. Wikipedia is about to graduate, and a smiling altruistic an open encyclopedia is not what will result.
Wikipedia Is Rotten From the Top to the Bottom.
May the Maths Be with you!
Yet the Wikipedia didn't bat an eyelash when Jimbo started Wikia using 'wiki' in the name. Double standard.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
The term 'fair use' refers to a doctrine of defense against copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. And while the courts have routinely said that names like "walmartsucks" and "dontbuyverizon" are clearly not going to create confusion in the marketplace, a name like "wikipediaart" just does not seem clear-- is it associated or not? The design of the front page may or may not help the defense on that question.
[
MonsterWiki
MonsterPedia
WikiMonster
Y'all gonna get sued!
Quoth Wikipedia itself:
A trademark typically becomes "genericized" when the products or services with which it is associated have acquired substantial market dominance or mind share. The term is legally significant in that unless a company works sufficiently to prevent such broad use of its trademark, its intellectual property rights in the trademark may be lost.
IANAL but, as I understand it, if Wikipedia are too free and easy about defending their trademark they won't have a leg to stand on when "Wikipedia Britannica" or "Microsoft Wikipedia" appear.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
History of Wikipedia Art completely erased from Wikipedia. Despite more than 2 dozen edits to the page, there is absolutely no record of its text, anywhere on the site.
Now is it just me or does it sound like there's more to this story than simply protection of a trademark? Why would the Wikipedia people permenantly erase a wiki page that seems legit? There's more evidence of deletions too...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
It's better to have a judge rule "it's fair use" now than have a judge rule "you didn't defend your trademark" five years from now.
www.definitelynotassociatedwithwikipediadotorginanywayatallhonest.org be ok?
rewriting history since 2109
Although I don't necessarily agree with Wikimedia's heavy-handedness here, the "wikipediaart" project seems like some weird attempt do use Wikipedia to do something which is not what Wikipedia is for. It is not a commentary on Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia doesn't exist so it can be used as a person's playground or for their pet projects. The "project" itself existed only as a Wikipedia page in essence, and was some sort of attempt at self-referential art from what I can gather - thus being inadmissible for its medium per their own rules!
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Why has the WMF gone after WikipediaArt but not Wikipedia Review or Wikipedia Watch? These two websites have been notorious for "outing" the real identities of editors and encouraging vote-stacking etc.
The Ubuntu people are the same, if not worse (by this I refer to Canonical). They protect their trademarks aggressively. They stop websites, or spin off projects, unless they're strictly non-profit (this includes advertising).
Trademarking is not usually discussed in the same breath as those old warhorses of copyright and patenting, but it can be just as dangerous as any kind of IP protection.
Mozilla thinks the same way as Wikimedia and obviously disagrees with EFF.
From the official Mozilla/Firefox Trademark Policy
Domain Names
If you want to include all or part of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from Mozilla. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Almost any use of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name is likely to confuse consumers, thus running afoul of the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing. If you would like to build a Mozilla, Firefox Internet browser or Thunderbird e-mail client promotional site for your region, we encourage you to join an existing official localization project.
A better name might have been 'wikipediasux.org' or something similar. No confusion, then, that it's another Wikipedia site.
"Wikipedia should know better. There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here. First, the site is entirely noncommercial, which puts it beyond the reach of U.S. trademark law"
What ever the legalities at issue her, it is patently obvious that the owners of wikipediaart.org are trying to piggyback on the reputation of Wikipedia. They did seem to have previously host their art site directly on Wikipedia itself. Perhaps the cybersquatting issue is a little retaliation.
Debian has encountered trademark concerns, before: Iceweasel. It's a tale worth reading, if you're interested.
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.
"The Ubuntu people are the same, if not worse (by this I refer to Canonical). They protect their trademarks aggressively. They stop websites, or spin off projects, unless they're strictly non-profit (this includes advertising)" Where, can you provide a list of citations where Canonical caused web sites or spin off projects to be canceled.
..
..
..
..
you may use the Trademarks in association with the software product provided:
* the changes are minimal and unsubstantial, as described above
* there is no commercial intent associated with the new product
* the Trademark is used in a way that makes it clear that your project is a development effort related to the Ubuntu source, but that the software you are working upon is not in fact Ubuntu as distributed by the Ubuntu project
* there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu
The EFF has it wrong on two counts:
Personally, I think that Wikimedia has a fair complaint here. If I saw an advertisement for a site called Wikipediaart.org, I would naturally assume that it was associated with Wikipedia. It is to avoid this kind of confusion and unwanted association that trademarks must be protected. And, it is important to note, a trademark must be defended whenever it is infringed upon (or assumed to be infringed upon), or the owner of the trademark loses it forever.
I think this is a different case than that of a website like microsoftsucks.com. No reasonable person would assume that such a site is associated with Microsoft.
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 more important question is will this threatened legal action using donated money take away money from their eat at fancy restaurants on donated money fund?
Perhaps they WANT to lose the case. There are still very few rulings on digital rights. If they can take this to court and all the way without some kind of settlement, then it would draw a clear line on fair use in this situation. Even if this was their goal, it's still a bit self-righteous...
"ChryslerArt.com" might be a little more problematic.
Yeah, it's quite fraudulent to call anything by Chrysler "art".
Okay, okay, maybe the foresight in scamming pensioners...
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
If people can reasonably expect "wikipediaart.org" to be a site run by the same people as Wikipedia and concerned with art, then it's a trademark violation (it seems to me that it is).
Furthermore, Wikipedia has no choice in the matter: if it could conceivably be a trademark violation, they must get active against it.
Exactly, for a public organization like Wikipeia you gotta stick up for your stuff or have snarky clever lawyers co-opt it out from under you. They're "non-commercial" so lots of businesses see that as fair game.
Imagine MS Wikipedia, Gwikipedia, iWikipediaPod, Rollerblade Wikipedia.... get the idea.
It's a trademark. There is no provision for non-commercial/fair use in trademark law, like there is copyright law.
You have to defend your trademark, otherwise, you lose it,that's how it works. No wonder the /. crowd is so opposed to intellectual property law. It's easy to oppose something when you don't understand how it works.
Yes there is. You are the one who clearly doesn't understand the law.
Read it and weep.
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 submitter presents the question as:
"Can a noncommercial website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? "
Now let's think of a REALLY EASY past example: verizonsucks.com, etc. Here we had the trademark owner asserting "brand confusion" which was laughable, except for the hoards of lawyers willing to outspend the defendant.
Now let's consider if that scenario applies here... this is a tough one, give me a minute.... NOPE. Not even close. The submitter editorializes and presents a false argument in hopes of a biased discussion.
The true question is:
"Can a noncommercial website use the trademark of ANOTHER noncommercial site in similar and confusing manner?". I expect any court action to answer this question with a "no". Fair use of a trademark will mean you do not use the trademark in a confusing and similar manner. Looks to me that both sites are similar products and given the trademarked name, both are affiliated.
You could have a website called "microsoftreviews.com" and review Windows products (maybe)... but if you ALSO present your product in a similar manner as Microsoft does (ie, rip the CSS from microsoft.com) then it's no longer a gray area, and you're going to lose.
IANAL, but trademark law depends not only on "use", but presentation. The EFF is wasting my money... I'd rather see them pushing for more open government.
When I saw the summary title, I immediately thought of paypalsucks.com. However, this is different. Nobody would think that paypalsucks.com was run by Paypal (*), and it is a commentary on paypal, so it is not infringing trademark. Wikipediaart.org sounds like something run by Wikipedia.
* Interestingly, googlesucks.com is owned by Google. They took the domain name to dampen criticism visibility. See: googlesux.com
It hurts wikipedia how? I can't really figure this out actually. Sure, it looks bad. Sure, it's not good for them to act in such an uncouth manner. When you google trichinosis (and lots of other specialized terms) wikipedia is the first link to come up and is still the one you are going to hit.
Wikipediasucks.com is nothing one would confuse with Wikipedia.
Wikipediaart.com, however, sounds like an official Wikipedia for art.
Domains can also be trademarks. Them's the breaks. Get over it.
Wikipediaart is trying to use the name wikipedia as a generic term for a wiki. However it IS trademarked and it gives them an artificial legitimacy by association with the name. Wiki is the actual generic term, if they called themselves wikiart there wouldn't be an issue. A site like wikipediasucks also wouldn't be an issue because it is obvious that it is not claiming legitimacy based on wikipedia's name. Wikipedia HAS to be legally involved or risk the loss of their trademark. This isn't greed or evil, If I made a site called igoogle I would expect to get sued into oblivion, even though googling something has entered the lexicon as a term for searching on the internet google defending their trademark prevents it from becoming a generic term.
Disclaimer: I am a 1950s socialist and have debated and contributed towards Maxist theory.
You may be able to point to the Soviet Union not being open-minded. From the purging of Citizens to being denounced by the co-founder, you may be able to point to things they've done that seem really really controlling and closed minded.
But look at what they've done and accomplished. Look at how they've come under attack themselves for their ideals or having over 1/2 of the world's population blocked from you.
They have established a totally classless society. No inequality. They have had to balance quality with quantity. They have established rules that define what socialist. I would wager that in the past year they are more talked about than any other country in this publication. Their power of veto in the UN reflect this.
If you are criticizing them because they are not as free and open as the West, fine. But know that I have access to a free public health care, education, transport and many other systems, to use them as an invaluable resource. Would the USSR have been as successful if they had taken a more open and free stance? They walk a fine line between their control and community control and I think they've done a fine job with their success as evidence.
May the Maths Be with you!
It doesn't hurt them until it hurts them, and who's going to supervise this? Wikipedia? Well son, labour has a price. Why should wikipedia spend money to ensure that a 3rd party aren't using their trademark improperly?
I am the lawn!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Trademark needs to be protected by preventing unauthorized use of it.
But there are two ways of
- disallow/litigate
- authorize/license
Wikipedia choose the nasty way.
Linden Labs used the nice way.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/31/0216258&from=rss
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
considering that the so-called "criticism" on the website you linked is pants-on-head-retarded, I can't blame them.
I like this fair use justification on one of wikipedias fair use justifications:
"The photograph belongs to Russian department of Atomic Energy Minatom. Introducing the picture on our server does not interfere with their ability to develop and market new nuclear devices"
Godwin can go fuck himself, because you just won the internet.
Read the answer by Mike Godwin (Gerneral Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation) to reproaches by the EFF.
Personally, I think the domain is way too confusing..
You have Microsoft, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel..
Now you have Wikipedia, Wikipedia Art...
What's the difference?
Full. Of. Win.
If you are criticizing them because they are not as free and open as the West, fine.
Um, what? I don't know how this got modded insightful at all ... comparing a web application to a country or government or ... ? Funny and horrendously flawed but not insightful.
Trademarks aren't data or information. They're a name, and names are very important in human society. Moreover, names and trademarks do not infringe anyone's rights in the way that proprietary software does. I see no problem with a trademark holder telling you that you cannot use their name in an infringing way. It's not right for someone to go around using the name "Red Hat" or a derivative. If Wikimedia doesn't want their trademark infringed, they should have that right. Nothing stops you from using their Free licensed information. Creativity isn't being stifled. Technological development isn't being held back.
Forget the law. This is an ethical issue.
It's quite lengthy and technical, so allow me to summarize:
Using our trademarked term 'Art' in a non-Wikipedia web page such as yours [citation needed] inevitably tends to dilute and water down our historic trademark protections and liberties. Those who would sacrifice article quality for a little temporary respite from deletion are doomed to repeat it, poorly. Wikipedia is like a car, and taking the wheels off it to replace them with DRM'd ones that only work on a particular kind of road is like boiling a frog. Just consider what would happen if Hitler himself designed cars...
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel is Mike Godwin (yes, THAT Godwin) who himself was part of the EFF for the longest time (is he still? I'm not sure) - given that, I'd be surprised if this was more than a misunderstanding. Either that, or there's more to the story that the summary isn't telling us.
(turns out, it is indeed the same Mike Godwin of 'Law' fame.)
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Did Godwin just break his own law?
All Cinderella's eventually turn into pumpkins that rot
The Chrysler Building is pretty nice.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Seems like Wikipedia is in the right. The name of the website is "Wikipedia_art", this to your average man implies it is - wikipedia art. If I set up a website called "Slashdot stories" it implies i've taken all the stories from slashdot and put them in there. Rather than "stuff about slashdot stories"
IANAL, but from what I've read about trademark law, if you don't protect your trademark, you lose it (or at least, your ability to protect it gets significantly restricted). As the parent says, the domain name wikipediaart.org is confusing and implies to users that the site is in some way affiliated with or part of wikipedia. Even were that not the case, it's using the trademark right there in the domain name. I'm all for allowing people to have 'fair use' of a trademark when discussing a product, company, or other organization which is trademarked. However, using it in your domain name is different. In this particular case, since they are both in the same 'industry segment' (e.g. website), it's even a bigger problem. You can have McDonald's hamburgers, and McDonald's investments, because those are two different industries. I don't think you could probably have a McDonald's Kitchen restaurant, because you are in the same industry as McDonald's hamburgers, so you would be infringing on their trademark (I think).
So, in summary, it's one thing to use the trademarked name of a company, organization, website, product, or service, when you are actually discussing it (as I've done in this case when I use McDonald's or Wikipedia in the discussion). It's entirely a different thing to name your company, organization, website, product, or service with a name which incorporates someone else's trademark who is in the same industry. Fair use ends when you are naming yourself, if I understand correctly. From a fairness/ethical perspective, anyhow, seems like that would be a reasonable way to view trademarks.
So in summary: the EFF accusations are complete BS. And although IANAL, having read the letters posted on the wikipediaart website, it looks to me as if he's right. The Wikipedia foundation has not "demanded that the artists give up the domain name peaceably" and has not threatened to "attempt to take it by legal force". So that's no story, then.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
'Moreover, even if US trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists' use of the mark is an obvious fair use.'
Wikipedia is not non-commercial, it's non-profit (from their pages: "a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity").
Both non-profit and non-commercial entities can hold trade marks. Both can be held in violation of same.
Since they use the exact trade mark (again, from their pages: "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.") rather than a generic derivative of it (ie. Wikiart) without obtaining permission, they are in violation. Specifically, by appearing as though they might be part of Wikipedia (disclaimers may follow but do not prevent prima facie assumption) Wikipedia's mark is subject to potential dilution. The law serves to protect against that specifically.
I blame Wikipediaart for the problem, even if it's due to ignorance. I doubt Wikipedia/Wikimedia wants to be seen doing this. However, they have to. Not to do so leaves them open to loss of protection should someone else do the same. Yes, it applies to trade mark as well as copyright. We've had the discussion before and references to the laws provided. A summary article with references can be found at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
Fair use does apply to trademark are well as copyright. However, it requires "non-imitative" use (http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html ). The look and feel of Wikipediaart is such that it could be dropped whole into Wikipedia and look like it belongs. It is far too imitative. Furthermore, the use of material previously on Wikipedia can lead to "confusion", the point other than "dilution" that the protection exists for.
I'm disappointed in the EFF attorney. Assertions are being tossed about that are clearly contradicted by the law. I hope the organization doesn't hold the same opinions.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Fair use deals with copyrights, this is a trademark.
Trademark law forces trademark holders to litigate at the slightest hint of dilution. If they don't do it, then they won't have standing to file suit later when it's more serious. Don't blame Wikipedia, it's how the law is written.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Without context, the domain name "Wikipediaart" implies "Art from, owned by, or otherwise associated with Wikipedia" and the defendants will lose based on confusion, unless they did a broad and potentially expensive marketing campaign to distance the domain name from Wikimedia.
If the domain was "Wikiediaartcriticism" or "LookingAtWikipediaArt" then they would probably win.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Did you read Godwin's statement? Did you read the letters on the wikipediaart website? Did you even read the message to which you were replying? They're not litigating, they're not even threatening to litigate. One of the letters they've written to wikipediaart specifically complains about wikipediaart misrepresenting them as threatening to litigate.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
The actual domain name in question, however, is "wikipediaart".
Is "Wikipedia" a trademark? Why, yes, it is.
Wiki
Encyclopedia
Art
None are trademarks.
Now, combine those words together and you make a new word. One that has elements of another word in them, but then again, Wikipedia have the W from Microsoft Word in theirs.
Or is it that by merging two works that aren't trademark, nobody else can merge words that contain those two words?
power ruins the best among us, same goes for the lawyer who registered the Linux trademark, only to give it back to where it belonged - the community...
where did I read "all men (and women) are created equal"?
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
I had to read that comment twice. I think it was either the "It doesn't hurt them until it hurts them" bit, or the "Well son, labour has a price." that caused that.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Quoting from one of the more "eloquent" portions of the argument:
"...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.
.org is just, well, bad form.
Still, Wikipedia needs to back off now that it's won on it's own site; squelching a
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
There's irony. Mike Godwin used to be the staff counsel for the EFF. Now he's battling his old organization!
Time to start talking about Nazis and stop this madness.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"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."
So they told it their use was illegal and they should hand it over ... yes, that is a threat.
Take, for instance, an article about a fiction novel or short story. The best reference about that, the book where it was first published, is cited in the references. How does that article lack references?
Wikipedia wants multiple sources, and it wants independent sources. That's what {{refimprove}} is for: improving references to increase an article's verifiability. A general encyclopedia wants to take an out-of-universe perspective when writing about fiction; this often means concentrating more on critical and commercial reaction than on plot points.
Or boxes complaining that in some way the article is not written in a style suited for an encyclopedia. Well, if you think so, do us a favor, stop complaining and *show* how it should be written.
Sometimes I'll rewrite a paragraph or two, but then I realize I don't have time to rewrite the rest, so I slap on {{ad}} or {{essay-like}} or something similar and save what I've already done.
Wikipediart is put up by two no-name 'artists' attempting to use Wikipedia to publicize themselves. Of course they are going to lie about Wikipedia's intentions in order to get more attention.
Their little ploy worked. If it were any other group but Wikipedia they were pulling this stunt on, I'd be offended. As it is, I say let the nutcases fight it out amongst themselves, they are the only ones who care one way or another.
The 'artists' of Wikipediart sound like spoiled art-college students with no talent except spouting lit-crit style post-sensical 'analysis.' Art is more than just standing on someone else's roof shouting 'Look at me! I'm an Artist!'
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Let me get this straight: Wikipedia is run by 18-year-old Australians? who talk in gobbledegook?
Doh.
Wow... you're REALLY bad at reading English.
Read the answer by Mike Godwin
Damn. You just Hitlered the debate!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
By their own language, it's a "legal threat". By other standards, perhaps not. But the Wikipedia-Way(TM) is that they are "different", and "new", and have evolved somehow. Either that, or there's a double standard somewhere ...
But of course, it was designed and built for them by someone else. Kinda like some of their cars.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Something more in tune with the Slashdot world: http://www.microsoftsucks.org/, and also: http://applesucks.org/
Microsoftsucks.org, Maybe the most well thoughtout articulate, knowledgeable, tech-savvy site on the interwebs. Full citeing of real world examples, technical data, and intelligent arguments throughout each topic!!!! /sarcasm off
You missed the part about what happens in Soviet Russia.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
"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
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"In light of the above, Wikimedia suggests that Mr. Kildall select a domain name that does not include any of Wikimediaâ(TM)s trademarks and that Mr. Kildall transfer the domain name to Wikimedia. Doing so would allow Mr. Kildall to continue to freely express himself without raising the same concerns that Wikimedia has asked me to investigate. If Mr. Kildall is willing to do so, please let me know by April 16, 2009."
Yeah ... still a threat.
Yeah ... still a threat.
No, a negotiating position.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Except no one is going to confuse 'microsoftsucks.org' as being affiliated with Microsoft.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Quite right, it looks like an official wikipedia site - they haven't got a leg to stand on.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Bad analogy at so many different levels it isn't funny. Anyone who edits Wikipedia can leave at any time. Anyone doing research can look elsewhere. Moreover, if you don't like something you can always fork the content since it is under the GFDL. If one were trying to use your analogy it might have some minimal validity if the USSR had allowed anyone to leave at pretty much anytime.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When I saw the summary title, I immediately thought of paypalsucks.com. However, this is different. Nobody would think that paypalsucks.com was run by Paypal (*), and it is a commentary on paypal, so it is not infringing trademark. Wikipediaart.org sounds like something run by Wikipedia.
Note that Wikipedia Review has never been asked to change their name, for exactly this reason. Nobody could read it for more than about thirty seconds without realizing it's not affiliated with Wikipedia.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
It's an encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit. You're acting as if the original writer "owns" the article and you can't touch it, except to shit little tags all over every single sentence. [citation needed] is a joke, as are most of those tags.
To me, [citation needed] means "the editor who added this claim needs to add a reference, or I'll delete the claim in a week". And I have followed through on this several times. It's the same reason that speedy deletion of uploaded files has a 2 to 7 day delay.
Putting a "this article needs to be revised" tag on a page without revising it your damn self communicates either: "my shit don't stink" or, "I'm far too important to be bothered with this encyclopedia". It's not a good message.
What about "I started to revise the article, but putting food on my children's table is more urgent to me than finishing the whole article"?
What about "I started to revise the article, but putting food on my children's table is more urgent to me than finishing the whole article"?
Why would you even start if your kids are hungry? Priorities, man, priorities. :)
Comment of the year
Did Godwin just break his own law?
Nope. The one you replied to merely posted a joke summary of Godwin's post, the original of which mentions nothing that would invoke Godwin's law. But even if Godwin had mentioned Hitler or Nazis, that would not be breaking Godwin's Law, that would be a fulfillment of the law, which merely states:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
And that is all.
This space unintentionally left blank.
If I may stick my oar in here: I actually created that template, and I never specified or intended that after a week the material should be removed. Now I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing but I think that one should use their common-sense when removing material from an article. I would suggest that a sensible move would be to first add a note to the talk page about the fact before deleting the material. A week time frame after asking on the discussion page is pretty reasonable, but again it depends on the information you are removing.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm going to start a new fast food restaurant with the above name. Instead of a clown and stuffed purple fuzzy characters I'm thinking sort of an 80's glam/goth vibe with lots of face paint. Sort of like McDonald's underworld twin. The names will be super badass and metal but everything will be vegetarian. Fast food for anarchists. Yep.
Wikipedia people are STUPIDS or what? Retarded maybe.
I'll block wikipedia.org from my routers and install a local copy of the huge database instead.
Eat that Lamers!
wikileaks
duh!
Hitler DID designed a car, the most constructed car in the world, by the way (+50 million). I'll leave the popularity of such vehicle up to you.
http://hitler.org/artifacts/volkswagen/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vw_beetle