Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> 'Wikipedia Art' Wikipedia entry deleted 15 February 2009
Andreas Broeckmann on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:28:19 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> 'Wikipedia Art' Wikipedia entry deleted 15 February 2009

dear ed,

clearly, the wikipedia people are very serious about what they are
doing; they are acting like a universal 'land owner' who would say
that there should not be any Land Art, or a proprietary owner of
the Internet who would say that there should not be any Internet
Art, because it was not made for it. unfortunately, this is not even
a case of cruel censorship, but of systemic stupidity (which has
its advantages in what they are doing), since they cannot recognise
the existence of something that has no credible credentials. (this
dilemma, and debates like this which flow from it, are at the heart of
their grander struggle for credibility.)

i think that this says much about what the wikipedia system thinks
about itself, and Wikipedia Artists will have to realise that it
might practically be more difficult to realise Wikipedia Art than,
for instance, Land Art, or Internet Art, or Video Art. For obvious
reasons. The same might be true of Walmart Art that somebody wishes
to realise in Walmart stores, or (formerly) KGB Art, or uninvited
International Red Cross Art happening in IRC hospitals and then asking
for the scissors.

the debate you refer to is part of what the contemporary Wikipedia
Artist has to do and deal with, and in the long run of art history,
there will be no doubt about the validity of the genre label - though
there may be discussion about the artistic merit. but then that's a
matter of taste and will, i trust, not be a criterion for it not to
receive a Wikipedia entry, eventually.

greetings, good morning,

>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)

#  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 {AT} kein.org