Of course the /real/ irony is that it now most definitely has significant comment in multiple independent reliable sources..................
(Against that, 'famous for stirring up a matter to become famous' isn't exacltly what WP:N is about. Lasting fame by (essentially) trying to use WP:N norms to generate attention it most likely wouldnt otherwise have had, may be valid in the art world, but here, less so. Misuse doesnt get celebrated, no matter the nobility of its motive in the performance art world, by simply creating drama in its wake. Too abusable if so. (Article creation on a vandal if they manage to vandalize wp enough to get media comment, anyone?) Interesting teaser though :) FT2 On 4/25/09, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>: >> 2009/4/25 Keith Old <[email protected]>: > >>> Ars Technica reports: >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars > >> As mentioned in the further reading of that article, this has already >> been discussed on foundation-l. See Mike Godwin's response here: >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051505.html > > > Also, the article has been rewritten. It took a day of me and others > going "wtf" in the comments before they even put that much of the WMF > side. > > Number of tech press who ran an article on this who contacted WMF for > comment: 0. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
