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."
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!
OMG you too epic fail rofl :D
You just got troll'd!
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.