Wikipedia Threatens Artists For Fair Use 235
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."
It does seem like trademark and cybersquatting! (Score:3, Interesting)
With the full understanding that this is for a court to decide, the domain name in this case is too similar. Regardless of any one-line disclaimer about not being affiliated with Wikipedia, it still seems too much like it would be an art website operated by Wikipedia. If you accept that PETA.org should belong to the PETA that puts naked chicks in cages on the street and not the PETA that goes through a lot of barbecue sauce (which a lot of people don't) then you have to accept that this domain name is confusing. A domain like "wikipediasucks.com" would make it clear that it was commentary about wikipedia. A domain like "Wikipediaart" makes it look too much like art affiliated with Wikipedia. Your whole front page would have to be a disclaimer given the average human -- I could see easily misinterpreting the top sentence in the pre-coffee boost phase and deciding that they WERE affiliated.
Re:Apple Art ? Microsoft Art ? Bank of America Art (Score:5, Interesting)
Weird little gem hidden in TFA (Score:2, Interesting)
History of Wikipedia Art completely erased from Wikipedia. Despite more than 2 dozen edits to the page, there is absolutely no record of its text, anywhere on the site.
Now is it just me or does it sound like there's more to this story than simply protection of a trademark? Why would the Wikipedia people permenantly erase a wiki page that seems legit? There's more evidence of deletions too...
Re:EFF Versus Wikipedia?!?! On Slashdot?!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla thinks disagrees with EFF's stance (Score:5, Interesting)
Mozilla thinks the same way as Wikimedia and obviously disagrees with EFF.
From the official Mozilla/Firefox Trademark Policy [mozilla.org]
Domain Names
If you want to include all or part of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from Mozilla. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Almost any use of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name is likely to confuse consumers, thus running afoul of the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing. If you would like to build a Mozilla, Firefox Internet browser or Thunderbird e-mail client promotional site for your region, we encourage you to join an existing official localization project.
Re:What a shame (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikipedia seemed to be the ultimate spot on the Internet for free thought and the sharing of ideas.
I'd say the sharing of ideas doesn't seem like it has much to do with Wikipedia, it's just trying to explain what everything is for the uninformed. Sharing ideas is for places like YouTube, where people *do* share them...every idea that comes into their head, no matter how inane.
Honestly, after reading TFA, it seems like this is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or Church of the SubGenius kind of case. The whole thing exists to throw a problem into sharp relief...it's not an "Art Project" so much as a method of arguing, trying to rally support for an issue by calling their side of the arugument something normally protected, like Art or a Religion. I'm all for what they're arguing, but I really don't know why they act all surprised when someone calls their bluff or tries to dismiss the tactic.
Re:Wikipedia Is Rotten (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, to be clear, Wikipedia is not the same as the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation owns the trademark and the servers but has essentially nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the English Wikipedia or any of the other Wikipedias or associated projects.
Much of what you have said is inaccurate or missing context. The primary reasons that Wikipedia looks like such a drama magnet is that a) there's a high degree of transparency so the normal internal jockeying and juvenile behavior is there for all to see b) many people have sincere ideas about what the project should do. People can legitimately and strongly disagree. Wikipedia does have some very serious problems, but one shouldn't overestimate them. The vast majority of editors get along just fine every day just plugging along. I suspect you'd find if you did a survey that even many admins aren't aware of the historical major scandals and drama sources such as the Essjay scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy [wikipedia.org])
Now, in regard to deletionism, I'm a user who has been labeled as a "hyperinclusionist" on at least one occasion and I think you are being unfair. Deletionism has legitimate arguments behind it. First, having many articles makes it difficult to navigate. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John [wikipedia.org] or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith [wikipedia.org] and then imagine how worse those pages would be if we included every little person. Second, Wikipedia is not intended as a free webhost. Those exist all over the internet. So even a die-hard inclusionist must agree that some inclusion criteria are necessary. Third, the more content we have (especially of obscure topics that few people care about or edit) the more potential for vandalism or insertion of libelous content which is really not good.
I don't have any strong opinion on the issue about the trademark in question (I haven't had time to look at the matter in great detail) but to connect this to alleged problems at Wikipedia is simply not helpful.
Re:Weird little gem hidden in TFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably because someone was trying to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for their art project...? Pages that don't have anything to do with Wikipedia's mission - which is creating an encyclopedia, full stop - regularly get deleted.
The page in question wasn't an encyclopedia article, it was a "conceptual art work composed on Wikipedia". Some artist(s) had a clever idea that used Wikipedia's resources, Wikipedia decided that they weren't in the business of creating art, the art project got the boot.
If you're looking for the relevant Wikipedia policy, try
Deletion policy [wikipedia.org]
Criteria for speedy deletion [wikipedia.org]
What Wikipedia is not [wikipedia.org]
It ain't rocket science, and it doesn't need a conspiracy to explain. Since the operators of Wikipedia Art are running their own wiki using the same software, it's a tad disingenuous for them to 'play dumb' about where the page went.
Finally, it's not gone without a trace. Wikipedia 'administrators' (really more janitors than powerful functionaries) have access to most deleted pages, and anyone can see the entry in the page deletion log [wikipedia.org].
Re:Wikipedia Review? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because its obvious that those two websites pertain to Wikipedia, but are not Wikipedia, and as such they're completely legit.
Be honest now. If you see "Wikipedia Art," don't you think that's an Art site owned/run by the folks behind Wikipedia? Is this any different than "BBC Art" or "Encyclopedia Britannica Art"? Yet you'd never make that assumption over "Wikipedia Sucks" or other similar sites... which is why they're different cases.
Re:Open-minded folks at Wikipedia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. Wikipedia became -- as I perfectly predicted -- a horrible joke of itself.
"Everyone can edit" is dead and gone forever. A ruling class has established. And they are controlling Wikipedia reality and laws now. Getting in gets harder and harder, as more and more entry rules and hierarchy levels get implemented.
I wonder if anyone ever really believed that it would "just work" with giving access to everyone. I mean, sure, we all had a strong wishful thinking syndrome. I quite possibly was one of Wikipedia's strongest defenders. But I soon realize how stupid and ridiculous it really is.
I mean what other community allows anyone to anonymously write whatever he thinks he's right? 4chan. We should have looked at how that turned out.^^
Interestingly (or not so interestingly), it went the same way that every other organizational system goes. The bigger it gets, the more the opinions differ.
But nobody is wrong, because on many many subjects, it is either impossible to determine the physical truth, or the whole thing is just relative to the person, which is a basic law of physics, that is somehow completely ignored at Wikipedia.
My best shot at fixing this, would implement the possibility for an infinite cascading views [like CSS cascading rules are creating the final layout] for one article, and reality-relationship models, where you could choose who to trust on what subjects (also in a cascading manner [again, like CSS rules]).
So I could perhaps choose "Jon Steward" as my basis, extend with some scientists that i know, and add an overlay of what a friend thinks about the politics in his country, to form my view of Wikipedia.
Now this may sound like the reality distortion of Fox. But in reality, you will not change what someone thinks, when he does not trust you. And my method is a software model of this. :)
And there really are things, where two completely opposite views are rightfully true for both people. Nobody has the right to censor or dominate those views.
And, hell, why not. My philosophy is, that everybody can think whatever he likes to think. As long as he does not hurt me (directly or indirectly [eg. by hurting friends]). No matter how crazy he is. Wouldn't I be the oppressor for not allowing him to think that way? If he's all by himself... so what? Let him be, if he's happy that way.
Re:Lock (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it is not simply an action taken by the foundation. It's a classic case of wikidickery. Some unknown artists create a page, call it wikipediart, throw some bullshit self referential art criticism nonsense up on it, and sit back waiting for the shit to hit the fan. They KNOW that wikipedia is chock full of nuts who will come gunning for them and their fake page. THAT is that performance art they were aiming for. So the page gets deleted, as they knew it would, and they set up a site infringing on wikipedia's trademark. They KNOW that the foundation has to protect their trademark, and they will get more free publicity for their 'art.'
These guys aren't artists, they are pretentious tools. Screwing with other people to get some free publicity isn't art. But the fine folks at wikipedia are pretentious tools too, so this whole thing is just a big dick-fight.
Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM (Score:2, Interesting)
(turns out, it is indeed the same Mike Godwin [wikipedia.org] of 'Law' fame.)
Re:Statement by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of WM (Score:5, Interesting)
{{refimprove}} (Score:3, Interesting)
Take, for instance, an article about a fiction novel or short story. The best reference about that, the book where it was first published, is cited in the references. How does that article lack references?
Wikipedia wants multiple sources, and it wants independent sources [wikipedia.org]. That's what {{refimprove}} [wikipedia.org] is for: improving references to increase an article's verifiability [wikipedia.org]. A general encyclopedia wants to take an out-of-universe perspective when writing about fiction [wikipedia.org]; this often means concentrating more on critical and commercial reaction than on plot points.
Or boxes complaining that in some way the article is not written in a style suited for an encyclopedia. Well, if you think so, do us a favor, stop complaining and *show* how it should be written.
Sometimes I'll rewrite a paragraph or two, but then I realize I don't have time to rewrite the rest, so I slap on {{ad}} [wikipedia.org] or {{essay-like}} [wikipedia.org] or something similar and save what I've already done.