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."
They have had to balance quality with quantity.
They peddle information. Quality matters more.
They have established rules that define what is encyclopedic.
For 14 year-olds who have never set foot inside a library, maybe. These "rules" were established way before Jimbo Wales ever plugged in a modem by organizations that actually adhere to them.
I would wager that in the past year they are more linked to than any other domain on Slashdot. Their Google rankings reflect this.
Wait, you think that Google rankings are based on actual pageviews? okaaay...