Edward Shanken on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:41:34 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> 'Wikipedia Art' Wikipedia entry deleted 15 February 2009 |
Following an extensive debate, the 'Wikipedia Art' entry was deleted at 6:32am UTC 15 February, 2009. The Wikipedia gatekeepers referred to it as a "non-notable, self-referential mess" ... that "does not exist in any way that merits an article." As the work's creators note, "The work still resides at its own domain, and has passed into its second (historical/evidentiary) phase." (link below) My subsequent art historical intervention - adding 'Wikipedia Art' to the Conceptual Art entry in Wikipedia - was also deleted. This entry, the last in a long line of examples of conceptual art (written in the present tense), noted that the "'Wikipedia Art' entry (deleted) generates over seven thousand words of debate on whether or not the article should be kept or deleted, ineluctibly instantiating the existence of Wikipedia Art as a viable artwork, the identity of which consists of its evolving Wikipedia definition, including the debate surrounding it." The deletion of my addition to Wikipedia is mysterious but not unjustified in the world of Wikipedia, for despite my academic credentials, my assertion of the authenticity of Wikipedia Art as art cannot be verified by what the editors recognize as a "reliable" source (namely peer-review publications). I would like to see Wikipedia Art instantiated in the context for which is conceived; indeed, by the very nature of its conception Wikipedia Art can exist and evolve only in the context of Wikipedia. At the same time, I recognize that the very nature of its conception is antithetical to the nature of Wikipedia. I embrace this dynamic, theatrical struggle of opposing forces and look forward to the ongoing debate and process of historicization... >From the Wikipedia Art website: A collaborative project initiated by Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, Wikipedia Art is art composed on Wikipedia, and thus art that anyone can edit. Since the work itself manifests as a conventional Wikipedia page, would-be art editors are required to follow Wikipedia's enforced standards of quality and verifiability; any changes to the art must be published on, and cited from, 'credible' external sources: interviews, blogs, or articles in 'trustworthy' media institutions, which birth and then slowly transform what the work is and does and means simply through their writing and talking about it. Wikipedia Art may start as an intervention, turn into an object, die and be resurrected, etc, through a creative pattern / feedback loop of publish-cite-transform that we call "performative citations." Wikipedia Art MUST BE written about extensively both on- and off-line. This serves the dual purpose of verifying the work - which is considered controversial by those in the Wikipedia community, and occasionally removed from the site - as well as transforming it over time. WE INVITE YOU TO DO SO! http://wikipediaart.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art Edward Shanken Department of New Media University of Amsterdam http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/ personal webpage: http://artexetra/wordpress.com # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org