Comments on: Wikipedia Art: RETALIATION http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/ implications since february two thousand and three Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:54:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: James http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/comment-page-1/#comment-353745 James Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:47:22 +0000 http://nathanielstern.com/blog/?p=1814#comment-353745 Why should we make it notable? If you want it to be notable, you make it notable. Why should we make it notable? If you want it to be notable, you make it notable.

]]> By: nathaniel http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/comment-page-1/#comment-353741 nathaniel Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:20:21 +0000 http://nathanielstern.com/blog/?p=1814#comment-353741 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. 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.

]]> By: Annie Moose http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/comment-page-1/#comment-353740 Annie Moose Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:51:33 +0000 http://nathanielstern.com/blog/?p=1814#comment-353740 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 <i>inform</i>. While I may personally not have an issue with your project, I don't believe it belongs on the Wiki. 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.

]]> By: nathaniel http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/comment-page-1/#comment-353738 nathaniel Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:54:09 +0000 http://nathanielstern.com/blog/?p=1814#comment-353738 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. 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.

]]> By: Annie Moose http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/comment-page-1/#comment-353737 Annie Moose Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:02:24 +0000 http://nathanielstern.com/blog/?p=1814#comment-353737 *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. *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.

]]>