Hi Helen & Eduardo, Thanks Eduardo for the link, I forgot about this one...
It has been rather infuriating, yet an obvious obstacle in respect of the circumstances of certain people putting their energy in following the more traditional paths laid out already there, rather than forging alternative territories that tend to offer a less definable nuances, which are less packaged but more connected mutually. And much respect to Helen and Rob for having the conviction, insight and generosity to make an effort in helping us out regarding the Wikipedia nonsense. The Wikipedia issue has brought about some pretty serious questions that are asking why so many academics working in the field of media arts, have not made more positive efforts to include furtherfield, its history, its projects and connected communities, as part of their written contexts and histories. I do have answers but will refrain from sharing them for now, because it can play into the hands of those who would prefer that certain voices would remain invisible or silent, for it questions their own positions, more than ever at the moment. Although, in contrast to this a younger generation is doing this:-) marc > thanks, eduardo, i've now added that reference, & have boldly reinstated > it as an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furtherfield > > the original reason for deletion was given as: "I just went through 20 > pages of Google and couldn't find a single non-trivial article on the > subject. It's written like a fan blurb and I highly doubt any serious > coverage given the one seemingly realistic reference came up blank." > obviously our definitions of "trivial", "serious" and "realistic" are > not the same ... > > others have said that there is an absence of good "realiable sources", > questioning whether rhizome & metamute are reliable sources. > > apparently the external links were also not helping, which seems kind of > bizarre to me. > > anyway, for now it is back there, who knows for how long, & if anyone > has any time to add further reliable sources or other information then > please do. > > h : ) > > Eduardo Navas wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I must admit that I don't completely understand why the page would have been >> proposed for deletion in the first place. I know of page stubs that are >> fillers and stay on until someone decides to add content to it. The >> citations are valid enough, as far as I can tell, to show the history of >> Furtherfield. If more citations will help, I recommend Bosma's historical >> reflection on online art and media culture: >> >> Constructing Media Spaces >> The novelty of net(worked) art was and is all about access and engagement >> Josephine Bosma, written circa 2004. >> >> http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/themes/public_sphere_s/media_spaces/scroll/ >> >> Specifically look at the section titled: >> "New diversity: Sarai, Furtherfield, Netartreview, Empyre" >> >> The very best, >> >> Eduardo Navas >> >> On 12/13/08 6:45 PM, "helen varley jamieson" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
