Village pump

From Wikipedia Art

See Help._I_have_created_a_monster.21 Note that this page has been auto-modified so as to have link-backs directly to Wikipedia, and not this Wiki.

Help. I have created a monster!

I think that the AfD at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art, which I started, has got badly out of hand. I don't think I have handled it very well and now it is turning into some sort of art intervention which might be worse than the "article" it seeks to delete. I am beginning to wonder if I should have put speedy deletion on the article and never been drawn into discussion about it. It seems that somebody is yanking our chains and I have fallen for it. Please can somebody help or offer advice? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. If some jokers want to make a stupid article about nothing, they're welcome to try. Rest assured it's gonna be deleted, cause it fails... well... nearly every one of our rules. No admin would close as anything but delete, no matter how long the discussion gets. You don't need to do anything or feel bad. Big debates about nothing are what bring in the majority of registrations :) Equazcion •✗/C • 02:26, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just getting worried that somebody is going to archive the whole discussion and the postmodernists are going to hold an exhibition of "Look how we made the encyclopaedists dance" with me as the star attraction. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you're worried about that, you can just remove your comments. If you feel you acted inappropriately there's nothing wrong with deleting your own comments to correct it (I think). I would just replace each comment with a copy-and-pasted note like "comment redacted". And remember not to touch anyone else's comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:37, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no point. It is still in the history and still licensed under the GFDL. Besides, it would probably only encourage the disruptive element to think that they have the better arguments. I was just wondering if there was any scope to shut down their playground early. Of course, I wouldn't want to compromise the integrity of the deletion process. It was concern for the integrity of Wikipedia that got me involved in this in the first place. I just find it depressing and unedifying that a gang of artists, supported by somebody who claims to be a professor, no less, can indulge in such folly and that I have helped them. I am kicking myself for not putting speedy deletion on when I had the chance. Ho hum. I have learned my lesson. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's difficult to avoid being baited. I think the key now is to avoid further fueling any controversy/avoid attracting further attention to the matter. Speedy deletion and other unusual actions are therefore probably not recommended -- slow and steady wins the race. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let the debate run its course. I personally have no clue how this could close as anything but delete. Just let everyone have their say in the meantime. Resolute 06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I, as an observer of that project, am sorry to see this reaction to it. Although I do know the artists, and have voiced my support for it in spirit, there is no way to have seen how it would have turned out. Either way, the emergence of the entry either constitutes a conceptual project that may have turned into a breaching experiment, or its removal results in a historical event. Either way, the entry, while reacted to quite poorly, seems closest to that of conceptual experiment or relatively benign breaching experiment, or even tactical media project. Regardless, I am the "professor" Daniel referred to, and I am one, teaching media theory in Chicago. I'm also a published curator and academic publisher. While my role has been primarily one of intense interest as a matter of research (as I am not one of the "artists", although I have been supportive), the interaction between the members of the community has been interesting, and I am sure that they had not imagined this response.

--Patlichty (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Illegally, I might add. It has now been requested for review, and not by me or any of the artists.--Patlichty (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion compromised the integrity of the deletion process. Artintegrated (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Care to back up that accusation? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:26, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WP:DFTT applies here... Mr.Z-man 08:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Artists, critics and media researchers, not trolls. Had the Wikipedia community acted more in line with its own rules and regulations and let the matter take its course rather than reacting as it did, at least 90% of this would not have happened. The difference between the artists and trolls is that trolls "Do it for the lulz", i.e., without ideology. Art has intent and/or ideology beyond eliciting a response. While Wikipedia Art as a project trod the "Don't use Wikipedia to make a point" line, it deserved its 24 hours.
It's now an art-historical event/intervention, and 1: will be part of an upcoming book chapter, 2: is being taken in consideration as material for a reference article as such, and 3: is being considered as an inclusion in an exhibition on art that addresses Wikipedia.

In short, the article. by Wikipedia's own rules, should have been given its time allotment.

Secondly, it also has shown in relief the shape and social dynamics of its user community and its social norms. I'm not being critical on this one; I'm just surprised that much of what I have found in Wikipedia reminds me of communities like Second Life, or many other large social spaces. --Patlichty (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would that surprise you? Powers ^T 14:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorists have ideology too. Just cause you think you have a good reason for breaking the rules doesn't mean you get to do it. I could toss some paint on someone's house and write a book about it later too, perhaps even call it art. That doesn't mean the community at large won't still regard it as a simple act of vandalism. You're correct that the situation wasn't handled correctly -- the article should've been swiftly speedy-deleted immediately. This was a mistake in that it was allowed to develop into a lengthy discussion, giving its authors a false sense of hope. For that I think we all apologize. Next time such work will be gone much quicker, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:00, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I'm with LtPowers. The amazing observation that a minority breaking rules, saying they don't apply, and attempting to impose a new frame to encompass all the old ones... pisses people off. Subversive art, as Tristan Zara astutely intimated, has to charm someone. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IP issues

I am amused by the use of the word "illegally" above, and it got me thinking about the legal issues, specifically trademark infringement. As it says at the foot of the main page "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.". This may mean that the use of the term "Wikipedia Art" as the name for a project, domainname and a website is an infringement of this trademark. I would also like to suggest to anybody seriously thinking about writing a book about this folly that everything on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL and any book that is largely culled from such sources would probably also have to be so licensed. Of course, I am not a lawyer and this is only speculation. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Call for meat puppets

see http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this and this a violation of the GFDL? The information seems to be the same as the articles on Wikipedia, but, although they reference GNU Free Documentation License 1.2., they don't reference the Wikipedia pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Scott Kildall article was substantially written by Nathaniel Scott (which is why I put the COI tag on it) so it is probably their copyright to republish as they see fit. The Nathaniel Scott article is probably not. They can easily solve this by complying with the GFDL. I am not sure how they can avoid the trademark issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be the downside to posting something so flagrantly against Wikipedia's policies - things that might have slipped by unnoticed suddenly become noticed after one opens themselves up to a critical eye by participating in something that so very obviously ran counter to the purpose of this project. Its nothing to worry about, really. Wikipedia has been the subject of other meatpuppet campaigns in the past, and if anyone actually responds to this call, they will likely get bored very quickly once they realize they aren't getting anywhere. Wikipedia:WP:RBI. Resolute 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is nathaniel stern. I've entirely avoided any discussion on this project, and have no aliases at all on Wikipedia, because of my own bias. I do feel I should set the record straight on a few things.

That link (above) was not a "call" for retaliation / meat puppets; it was saying that you, Daniel - and others - were retaliating against Scott and I - not to mention Brian - on Wikipedia. You can try to hold up a pretense of objectivity, but you yourself have said that this situation was not handled as it should have been, that rules were broken and bad precedents set by yourself and others - not us.

The GFDL issue will be resolved - that site was not meant to be public (our wiki); it was a draft for our own purposes, but must've slipped through the cracks through link backs. It will later serve as an archive, and will be done legally through GFDL. We have no desire to break copyright.

re: Kildall's page, we only met for the first time this Fall. I wrote that page on him quite a while back b/c I was simultaneously researching him and his work for my PhD; it was through that respect that I invited him to talk at my University, which is when we came up with the idea for Wikipedia Art. I have not edited his page since we met.

Sherwin and I have never met in person. He emailed me to do an interview about my work after he found me online - possibly through Wikipedia (I don't know). Since then, we've maintained minimal contact, and only a professional relationship.

I know a lot about copyright, and we did not break that with Wikipedia Art; trademark, I know less about. but as far as I know, there's a small amount of fair use precedent even in trademark: this is satire, transformative, and commentary. I may be wrong, and in that case, Scott and I will await the owners of the trademark to contact us before acting any differently. NathanielS (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Re-reading the above later I can see how it might sound antagonistic. It is not meant to be. I just wanted to try to set a few things straight. Admin 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)