On 4/27/09, FT2 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
