The art work / page has been deleted from Wikipedia, approximately 12 hours after its birth. But it is not dead, merely transformed – performatively un-uttered and soon to be resurrected in an/other form. Watch this space for upcoming/ongoing press and archives and interventions that are all part of Wikipedia Art as a work. In the meanwhile, my favorite fragment of the piece thus far is the performance it engendered here and here. (These will be archived elsewhere soon, under the necessary GFDL license.)
It should be duly noted that:
- Wikipedia broke their own rules in deleting this post, citing that it broke their rules, which should never be broken. The discussion that began surrounding its deletion was NOT closed, and thus the page should have been given at least 24 hours (most are given 3 to 5 days). Endorsers of the deletion claim that the ends justify the means, but rule-breaking begetting rule-breaking by the enforcers seems like a stretch for truly objective readers / editors / Wikipedians. Admitting that’s the case, fearing the “setting of a precedent” – as some express in the above links – does not make it any better; worse, in fact. Obviously, even if the Wikipedia community does not see Wikipedia Art as a “valid” intervention, they have proved it to be a necessary one (and thus valid on a much larger and more important scale).
- The Wikipedians behind the delete (and lock-down – no one can recreate the entry) also went so far as to erase the entire history of the Wikipedia Art page – there is no record of the “work” (in its initial manifestation on Wikipedia) and its transformations, other than in the debates linked to above (and a few other snippets of arguing I didn’t bother posting right now).
Poor form, gentleman. We’ll have archives and updates live on WikipediaArt.org soon.
{ 4 } Comments
Why give up so easily?
Wikipedia Art, even now, lives on in the in-between spaces. For instance, nobody deleted the image (yet). Why not simply carry on the discussion around the image for now:
http://tinyurl.com/bskug3
It IS still a wiki page itself, and it does live on Wikipedia. As necessary, the content of the page could move as needed to different cracks and crevices in the Wikipedia data structure. Perhaps, the Wikipedian editors might not even have a fundemantal problem if it actually lived just below the surface for a while. After a time, if it proved itself to be interesting enough, and the whole concept becameknown by a large enough group, it would meet standards to become anactual full fledged entry :-)
you’re on to something. need a few days to get some things together for our own site, but am starting discussions with scott about this possibility now….
I just read the Delete: discussion page on Wikipedia.
Fascinating! Allot of Shane Mecklenburger’s comments were right on,and helped increase the radius of the debate, by which the Wikipedian Authorities couldn’t simply state their interpretation of the 5 golden rules and then press delete with out consequence (well they did the Delete part – but not without consequence ). It was amazing to see how quickly they – the Wikipedian Authorities grew agitated with the prospect of having to reflect upon and consider the wider implications of “their” collaborative project (Wikipedia), even if the consensus would still have been to find the Wikipedia Art entry inappropriate for what ever reason – their vehemence and almost fascist adherence to the bureaucracy they enjoy was spine tingling. In a world where everything is ultimately ‘Subjective Only’ – there are those who like to question and then there are Librarians.
my favorite comments came just at the end when the impatient rally cry to DELET came to a crescendo -
* Delete as non-notable, self-referential mess. Tried by others, and deleted. Kill kill kill. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
* Delete. As the contributor of ten percent of Wikipedia’s featured pictures and twenty percent of its featured sounds, assuring fellow editors that this can be safely deleted. Most of the citations fail WP:RS and the rest fail WP:NOR. ‘Wikipedia Art’ as such does not exist in any way that merits an article. And serious efforts toward building a collaborative media restoration undertaking would only be undermined by the existence of such a page as this. DurovaCharge! 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. No indication that the content may meet our criteria for inclusion. — Werdna • talk 06:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
First Judge says – “Off With Their Heads!”
Second Judge says – “Trust Me guys – Im the Authorities’ Authority – I can safely assure you that these upstarts don’t have a leg to stand on with us! Go ahead and Delete!”
Third Judge says – “Hear Hear, Sentence Has been passed! DELETED as ORDERED!
Great Stuff!
thanks jeff!
Post a Comment