Skip to content

Wikipedia Art: RETALIATION

Wikipedians are not only critical of Wikipedia Art (which has already been marked for deletion, within an hour of launch), but the powers that be are RETALIATING. Make sure Wikipedia Art, and its collaborators, are not punished for their work!

*

The page on me (Nathaniel Stern) as an artist has been up on Wikipedia since October 2007. Given my international shows and press, it has NEVER been marked with any trouble, and it suddenly has “material not appropriate for an encyclopedia” – material that has been there since day one.

Scott Kildall’s Wikipedia article was similarly never problematic; it has been online since April 2008. Now his citations supposedly have a “conflict of interest,” his work doesn’t meet the “notability guideline for biographies,” and might be “merged or deleted.”

Brian Sherwin is the critic / editor for MyArtSpace.com. For two years he has been covering some of the most established and relevant emerging artists worldwide. The Wikipedia entry on him and his work had been accepted by its community until today, when he published an article on Wikipedia Art, which was referenced on the Wikipedia Art page. Now, Sherwin’s page suddenly doesn’t meet the “notability guideline for biographies,” “needs additional citations for verification,” and might be “merged or deleted.”

Don’t let it happen. Collaborate with us. Write, write, write. Make Wikipedia Art.

{ 5 } Comments

  1. Annie Moose | 16 February 2009 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    *cough* Want a little cheese with that whine? The Wiki’s databases aren’t inexhaustible, you know. The art/artist guidelines have been getting stricter, I presume, and someone decided a good clean-out of old, pointless, unnecessary, unimportant articles was long overdue. Not saying that article was, but, hey, that’s the way the Wiki works. Not everything you find important is actually notable.

  2. nathaniel | 16 February 2009 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    This is a call to action, Annie, not a whine. And talk about pretense: you both use the strong language of conviction AND add a “not saying that article was…,” while signing anon. I know 18 yr olds who live in the UK and just graduated from high school (the kid who deleted Wikipedia Art) know far more about what is notable South African and New York and Chicago art than I do, than Kildall does, than Sherwin does. He must, because he is a fairy penguin who trolls Wikipedia, and I am merely – god, I have no desire to list my qualifications. The knowledge that I know nothing pains me. It pains us all. I’m crying on the inside. Talk about a whiner.

  3. Annie Moose | 16 February 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Meh, I prefer to stay anonymous online. My Wiki username is Alinnisawest, if you’d like to talk to me there. I just happened to come across the link on the Village Pump, headdesk’ed multiple times after reading this post (which, you have to admit, is whiny. I mean, come on- surely we can express displeasure in an adult manner?), and made a comment trying to explain to you why the articles were deleted.

    After trying very carefully to understand Wikipedia Art, I don’t even know why you (or whoever began to project) even thought it might be remotely notable… Wikipedia is not an art project. It is an encyclopedia. For important things. Not to make statements, not to make art, it’s there to inform. While I may personally not have an issue with your project, I don’t believe it belongs on the Wiki.

  4. nathaniel | 16 February 2009 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Nor did Banksy’s work “belong” at the Tate. Or Duchamp’s urinal at the Armory (see the Art Intervention entry on Wikipedia). And this post is not whining about the piece being removed, even if in text you decide to read it as such. It is showcasing the biases and egos behind the interface of Wikipedia, the “experts” such as yourself. Read again: no where in this post does it say I believe Wikipedia Art should remain on Wikipedia. I instead call for people to make it notable enough to remain there as a project, to see it carry on as a good intervention; which it obviously is, given the debate that happened, and the self-congratulatory rule-breaking WIKIPEDIA EDITORS carried out in order to delete it without consensus. To them / you, the ends justifies the means; you can break your own rules to punish rule-breakers.

  5. James | 17 February 2009 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Why should we make it notable? If you want it to be notable, you make it notable.