. blog —

wiki2.gif

Nathaniel Stern and Scott Kildall "Wikipedia Art" project, which was deleted by Wikipedia users soon after it went live, was intended as an artistic intervention in the open yet closely regulated space of Wikipedia. Considering the context, it is unsurprising that the project was so short-lived. In the artist's statement, Kildall and Stern claim that the work "MUST BE written about extensively both on- and off-line" and, indeed, it did generate ample debate. Check the Rhizome Discussion board for a conversation related to the function of truth on Wikipedia, as well as the discussion section for the Wikipedia Art entry itself, where users consider the place of an art project of this type within Wikipedia.

— Share this Article —

Comments

Tom Moody 6 years, 12 months agoReply

This project is being mostly panned over at Paddy Johnson's blog:

http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/16/wikipedia-art-lasts-all-day/

(cross posted to the other discussion at http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713)

Angela Edwards 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Yeah, I saw that blog the other day. I think that some art would be eye catching but I can see why the idea is not embraced by everyone. You never know what you're going to get.


Angela from Aberdeen

Backlinks

Julie Stevenson 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Well hey, I guess some people don't appreciate the fine arts! /sarcasm

To be honest, I seriously think Wikipedia is one big, piece of fail. But that's just me..

- Julie, consultant for Free Credit Reports

Matt 6 years agoReply

yeah, not a big fan of wiki myself

Tony 5 years, 7 months agoReply

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of wikipedia either, but think the art should be allowed. - magic jack review

Tom Moody 6 years, 12 months agoReply

This comment of Patrick Lichty's in the Wikipedia discussion section is completely biased advocacy masquerading as scholarship (TS is Lichy):

"This sort of artwork already has strong precedents in history - the Surrealists' Exquisite Corpse, Debord's idea of Situationist detournement, and although I am not part of this collective, I fully intend to include it as part of my chapter for the upcoming book of distributed writing commissioned by Turbulence.org, and it will be mentioned as part of my talk on new art practices at a guest lecture at Denver University on 2/16/09, and I have already written on it on my critical blog in London. Therefore, the reference is to the emergence of the concept, which now exists outside Wikipedia, and is paradoxical but not solipsistic. I think that the person suggesting the idea of letting the idea grow is well-reasoned, and a time for review (say, 90 days) could be set for re-evaluation.–24.14.54.88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)–TS"

In other words, "Just wait three months, gang, and I will have ginned up enough mock outrage and pseudo-discourse to make this art its own subject!"

MTAA 6 years, 12 months agoReply

+++

I noticed Patrick Lichty's advocacy of the project and assumed that he was
a) paid for his essay (which was posted on Rhiz right?); and
b) a co-conspirator either directly or indirectly (i.e. he decided on his own to co-conspire)

In other words, his pseudo-discourse and ginning of mock outrage is all part of the larger project and that Stern, Lichty, et al are playing the structures and systems of Wikipedia and the academic art world off each other. It's all one big performance.

Being that Lichty was part of RTmark and Stern understands Wikipedia better than most artists (he's not naive enough to think Wikipedia Art would have lasted very long), it makes sense to me.

curt cloninger 6 years, 12 months agoReply

Hi Tom,

In a sense you're right, but isn't that the way all canonicity works? How is "non-intellectual" Brooklyn underground gallery canonicity qualitatively superior to "intellectual" academic press canonicity? How is a consensus at artfagcity qualitatively superior to a consensus at rhizome (or at iDC or nettime, where dialogue is also happening about this piece)? Warning: You will have to engage your intellect to properly consider these questions.

Whether or not this piece intended to raise these issues regarding the inherent subjectivity of canonicity and authority, it has effectively raised them. The wikipedians are right that the piece doesn't belong in their encyclopedia, but they are deluded into thinking that they are achieving some sort of clinical objectivity via rational consensus (or that any such objectivity could ever be achieved).

+++++++++++++++

de Certeau has this to say about belief – it used to be that people believed in something because they had subjectively evaluated the quality of that something and decided to believe in it. Spectacular media changed all that. Now people believe in something because a critical mass of other people have been convinced into believing that same something.

Here's how it works in the "objective" news media. CNN can't do a gossip story on Britney Spears, because such a story is not newsworthy. But The National Inquirer can do a gossip story on Britney Spears, the Inquirer story can generate public interest, and CNN can then do a story on the media buzz generated by the Inquirer story. The CNN story is essentially still just a gossip story on Britney Spears, but it has been legitimized because it is no longer a story that CNN itself believes to be newsworthy; it is now a story on what CNN believes to be a critical mass of other people who believe the story to be newsworthy.

The same phenomenon is unfolding now regarding the "discussion" surrounding this piece. If the piece itself is not newsworthy, the discussion surrounding the piece will soon become newsworthy. Whether or not the piece or the discussion every becomes "artworthy" is something that I think Paddy is right to question. Is the immediate removal and subsequent viral discussion of this piece something that the artists intended and implanted into the piece as a self-undermining, self-perpetuating aspect of the piece itself? If so, it's kind of ingenious. Just a personal guess, but I don't think they meant it to play out this way (but of course it hasn't fully played out yet, so who knows). The amount of time spent on the logo design seems to indicate that they at least hoped for some kind of more permanent home within the wikipedia structure, and that the dialogue they hoped to engender would occur there on wikipedia itself. Instead, a nugget of dialogue happened there, and the rest is happening now outside of wikipedia on the rest of the interweb (or on the still self-referential and very insular "net art" interweb). We are "policing" the "art-worthiness" of the piece here at rhizome the same way the wikipedians were policing its "encyclopedia-worthiness" there at wikipedia.

Paddy's criteria for the piece's failure is curiously similar to Karl Popper's critique of logical positivism ( cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Karl_Popper.27s_objection [wikipedia reference pun intended]). Paddy implies that the piece has to somehow be falsifiable. There has to be some criteria by which to assess its failure. Is the piece purposefully attempting to get kicked off wikipedia and be spread as a meme (in other words, is the subsequent discussion about the piece the actual goal of the piece)? Fine, but then that intention should somehow be implicit in the text of the original wikipedia post, in the title of the piece, in the logo, etc. Otherwise, the piece fails. It's like having to call your shots in pool. If you accidentally sink a ball in the side pocket when you were aiming for the corner pocket, then you didn't really sink it.

Personally, that seems a strange criteria to apply to internet art, where unexpected propogations are par for the course. Whether or not the piece was "intellectual" enough to have purposefully engendered all this "intellectual" dialogue, it may at least prove conceptually porous enough to have absorbed it. At least the subsequent dialogue is about language and the consensual mechanisms of truth (grrr), and not about white cube gallery culture (yawn).

prrr,
Curt

curt cloninger 6 years, 12 months agoReply

Not that the artist's intention need have anything to do with how a critic interprets the piece, but here is Scott Kildall's stated intention for the piece:

++++++++++++++++++++

"The results of this project/intervention (or what I would now prefer to call an "experiment") is that we have discovered certain facets about the Wikipedia community. The aims of the endeavor were not to posit anti-Wikipedia stance, but rather to elicit a response in the form of a conceptual intervention. The fundamental tension between democracy and authority is a kernel of contradiction that was one key idea behind the project.

Performative art on Wikipedia itself was quickly deemed inappropriate by the gatekeepers. Nathaniel and myself were hoping, but not expecting, that we would be able to succeed through its very nature of self-referentiality: that it was an artistic project that could be sanctioned by Wikipedia in that it pointed out a discrepancy in the production of knowledge.

Apparently not so. We're still left with the issues that something on Wikipedia which is stated becomes "true," essentially (re)writing histories. This also manifests itself in the negative space of Wikipedia: what is not included is also not worthy. The fabric has many holes: Joseph Grigely, for example, doesn't have a Wikipedia entry but Marlith, a type V demon race in Dungeons and Dragons does ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilith )

The primary revelation that sticks with me is the culture of the gatekeepers. What I saw was a distinctly non-academic culture with a tilt towards a very young (16-25) demographic. Since Wikipedia is *the* source of encyclopedic knowledge, this could very well explain an over-emphasis on Wikipedia covering popular culture. Even with the success of the Wikipedia project, which I applaud in many ways, the mechanisms for inclusion and exclusion seem like they could use some reworking."

- Scott Kindall (posted on 2/17/09 to The List of the Institute for Distributed Creativity)

++++++++++++++++++++

MDC 6 years, 11 months agoReply

<i>The wikipedians are right that the piece doesn't belong in their encyclopedia, but they are deluded into thinking that they are achieving some sort of clinical objectivity via rational consensus (or that any such objectivity could ever be achieved). </i>

Here's a thought: Maybe plenty of Wikipedians have already taken college survey courses about Derrida et al.

Maybe they aren't deluded about the possibility of "clinical objectivity via rational consensus", and don't actually need to be enlightened by brilliant avant-garde artistic interventions that will shatter their small-minded worldviews.

Maybe they recognize the limitations and provisionality of their project, but nonetheless prefer construction to deconstruction.

Just a thought.

curt cloninger 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Hi MDC,

Point well taken, although de Certeau hardly fits into the category of "Derrida et al" (you're stereotyping your philosophers like I'm stereotyping my Wikipedia editors).

Not that the artists of this piece are necessarily referencing either philosopher. I agree that if the project was meant to preach to wikipedia editors, then it comes across as preachy.

I don't speak for the artists, or Patrick Lichty, or "Rhizome," or academics, or the avant-garde, or "new media artists," or people who are almost 40, or people who have never lived in New York City. In this particular instance, I am personally interested in the way that online consensus (particularly at Rhizome, nettime, iDC, and artfagcity) is being used to evaluate the success or failure of a piece intended (however hamfistedly) to explore the topic of online concensus.

Best,
Curt

Tom Moody 6 years, 12 months agoReply

correction, "TS is Lichty"

Eric Dymond 6 years, 12 months agoReply

Well, there is an assumption here that could generate more interesting discussion.
Wikipedia exists as an online collaborative encyclopedia. But why do encyclopedias exist? If knowledge is fixed, and the wiki-police seem to think they recognize valid documentation of the world around us better than the collective invlolved in this project then we have a problem. It becomes the judgment of a coterie that determines *truth* or at least *what is it?*. If this project challenges the politcal hierarchy of an encyclopedia with a ^sparkling^ reputation, then it's a good thing.
The most obvious comment here is that a good chunk of wikipedia wouldn't exist without the content provided (without consent) by artists, engineers, etc. etc., most of whom are of course dead.
If the collaborative nature of the artwork and it's lack of a fixed point induces nausea in the wiki collective, then it's probably doing what art does best.

Pall Thayer 6 years, 12 months agoReply

I think it's pretty generally accepted by now that knowledge is not fixed and that's why wikipedia will accept anything that can be backed up with citations. Based on the documentation around Wikipedia Art I would say that it was much more about trying to challenge wikipedia's rules rather than any sort of political hierarchy. The primary problem was that the challenge was based on a flawed interpretation of the rules, which was quickly pointed out.

What surprised me the most about this project was the level of academic arrogance that followed. We had "the professor" declaring its notability, and another notable academician touting this as a significant event in the history of conceptual art the day after it happened.

We can argue that the fact that the work generated much debate makes it significant but if you read through the delete debate you'll see that most of the keepers are attempting to force it into a debate about things that are entirely irrelevant given the setting and the original premises. It wasn't really a debate. More like two separate discussions, intertwined.

What began as something that could have been an interesting experiment disintegrated into silliness.

Eric Dymond 6 years, 12 months agoReply

there is also a nice interventionist tautology to the piece. is it enough to sustain it or does it require the controversy?

Salvatore Iaconesi 6 years, 12 months agoReply

it's interesting, but isn't all of this a little too pumped up?
it is nothing different that street art, even in the idea of continuous evolution (with graffiti artists having whole mythologies of walls covered again and again in sagas of aesthetic wars, debates, territorial "ownership" and even collaboration and mutual reinterpretation)
and as with any detourn, illegality is a viable option: the artwork is fine either they remove it or not.
i just don't see it being "notable" just because it is on wikipedia.
wikipedia is specific in it being closed to experimentation, just as
and the fact that "anyone" can contribute to it does not make it a "free space". It is just like in physical society, where people argue about stuff and the people with more skill/stamina/karma/charisma/empathy win and their concepts break through.
yet it is a nice concept, but wikipedia is just "a wall" and the artwork is "a graffiti", with gangs and citizens discussing wether the ugly grey building was better or worse without it, and wether the act of reappropriation is legit or not. It is an art of reappropriation, of detorunment, of critique to a urban context (only this specific urban context is digitally networked). And the act itself includes the discussion and possible removal.

Tom Moody 6 years, 12 months agoReply

"You will have to engage your intellect to properly consider these questions."

Curt, there you go again.

curt cloninger 6 years, 12 months agoReply

"There you go again."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w

Come on Tom. I've got kid gloves on. If you can accuse Patrick of "ginning up… mock outrage and pseudo-discourse," then I can point out the inherent conundrum that one's "intellect" is always required to assess the relative merit of pejoratively dismissed "intellectual" dialogue.

In basketball, when you don't have a referee, you call your own fouls (you say when someone else has fouled you). It's a matter of working out some kind of fun balance. If you cry foul at every instance of legitimate/lively contact, then the level of play is always safe but tends to be boring. On the other hand…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0lbdPKl8hg

Tom Moody 6 years, 12 months agoReply

Curt, I don't doubt you are capable of being even more condescending.

On my blog I've listed other instances of Lichty's "pseudo-scholarship as performance," or however it's being justified here: http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2009/02/17/daniel-rigal-toughs-it-out/

On the Wikipedia "articles for deletion" page Lichty repeatedly cites himself as an authority in support of the piece and refers to "a developing discussion on a 10,000 person listserv (Rhizome)" without mentioning that he initiated it.

(http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713)

He isn't playing academia off of Wikipedia. He is earnestly arguing for inclusion of the piece, citing himself as an authority. Either way it is wasting the Wikipedia editors' time.

Editor Daniel Rigas was the soul of patience in saying: "I don't think it is productive to discuss this. I now regret giving it an opening as it isn't relevant here. (This is what I get for trying to be helpful.) Some people reject the concept of encyclopaedic knowledge. That is their choice but I don't see any reason for a person of that view to hang out on an encyclopaedia. This sort of stuff gets discussed interminably by philosophers. We are not going to get anywhere with it here. Lets let it drop."

Paul Slocum 6 years, 12 months agoReply

I think I prefer: the time I went to the Leonardo DiCaprio entry and it was just the word "gay" copied 1000 times.

Here are the two artists contribution pages on Wikipedia:
Scott Kildall
Nathaniel Stern

I looked into this because I was wondering if they had enough experience with Wikipedia to know that there is no way the article would last more than a few days. I only have 6X the contribs of these guys, but I've participated in enough deletion discussions to know that Wikipedia nerds ain't gunna put up with this kind of shit. They're gunna just delete and direct you to this article, but Supercentral (and probably others) kinda already did that.

If they knew it was going to be deleted, then I respect their trolling, but thousands of kids with lots of free time have already explored this concept on Wikipedia to my satisfaction. If they thought they could really maybe keep the article on Wikipedia, then personally I think they didn't learn enough about their medium before they dipped into the "paint".

curt cloninger 6 years, 12 months agoReply

Hi Tom,

First off, you abuse me with your language when you doubt whether I am capable of being even more condescending. It really hurts my feelings. Not only that, but it's condescending. The truth is, I am capable of being much more condescending. I only pray that this paragraph has increased (even if ever so slightly) your respect of my condescension skillz.

The strange thing is, I'm mostly agreeing with you about this particular piece. I don't think it is terribly successful on its own terms. It came out of the gates claiming (in tone) more than it was able to achieve. And in fact, much of the dialogue here and on nettime and iDC has been critical of the piece for exactly those reasons.

I do think it is a bogey and "the soul" of utilitarianism to make an ethical issue out of the poor Wikipedian's longsuffering.

For more on the funky inner-workings of Wikipedia, check:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/

Best,
Curt

curt cloninger 6 years, 12 months agoReply

Hi Tom,

I just re-read your post and noticed that you *don't* doubt my condecension skillz. I feel like such an idiot! The whole time you were actually giving me props for my skillz!

I hope we can still be friends.

Sincerely,
Curt

James Ma 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Was it deleted due to conflict of interest? The domain has Wikipedia in it. What a waste of time and resources for people doing all the hard work and it was not even recognized.

<a href="http://www.loseweightweekly.com">easy diets</a>

patrick lichty 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Hey, all.
Good conversation.
I'm not offended at all at Tom's mock outrage at my mock outrage, or the other criticisms of the project.
After the fact, I'm very honest that it was an intervetnion; sometimes I think that Scott and Nathaniel actually thought it might have had some time to survive. I didn't. Nor did I believe that my protestations and breast thumping give me any more hope. It was texture, as was the demonization of it was here.

Creating the gesture created the fait accompli that it was an event. It's a performance, sure - again, was there any real doubt of this? The idea that somehow the Rhizome community demands full disclosure while the fight went on merely said that others were merely taking positions while we were. Not that interesting, and for anyone with any knowledge of Tactical Media, pretty predictable, and near machinic. Anyone with a little experience could see the conversation unfolding like a script. Mock outrage, indeed…

I think what was most interesting were the dramatis personae on the Wikipedia side, and the arcane bylaws that we saw while going through the event,, like the "Snowball" and "Don't Feed the Trolls" rules. Crazy stuff. Not to mention the 18 year old, the Deletionists versus the Inclusionists, and so on. It's nearly Steampunk. It reinforced my belief in disallowing WP as no more than a tertiary source, for sure.

I also think that the "gestures' being thrown around (here and there) were largely cynical ones, until we got to the underbelly of the beast. When the honest reactions started happening, I think that's where the real art happened.

Interesting. Really interesting.

Michael Szpakowski 6 years, 11 months agoReply

<I think what was most interesting were the dramatis personae on the Wikipedia side, and the arcane bylaws that we saw while going through the event,, like the "Snowball" and "Don't Feed the Trolls" rules. Crazy stuff. Not to mention the 18 year old, the Deletionists versus the Inclusionists, and so on. It's nearly Steampunk. It reinforced my belief in disallowing WP as no more than a tertiary source, for sure.>
Yes - this was the revelation for me. I actually think most commentators have been far too kind to Wikipedia and the Wikipedians, as if they're just blameless folk trying to do a job rather than enmeshed in a *profoundly* ideological enterprise. I found the discussion, with its cult like terminology and arcane procedures and precedents, chilling. Irrespective of what position one adopts on epistemology in general & the merits or otherwise of the encyclopedia form in particular the fact that the discussion showed *no* aliveness on the part of the would be deletors to the fact that there might *be* a deeper discussion to be had and substituted a kind of religious obscurantism for *thought*, together with the sheer haste with which they rushed to stamp out this evidently brain-hurting anomaly, certainly terminally ruined Wikipedia for me.
There's a huge degree of disingenuousness too about sophisticated media types all of a sudden demanding that a project be judged entirely on face value.

Critic: They're playing a role! They planned things in advance! They (almost shakes with rage)… colluded!
The World: You don't say!

I must admit when Nathaniel proposed it for a Rhizome commission last year I didn't - despte my predisposition in favour of pretty much anything he's involoved in - really *get* it.
But both the splendid confusion and bad temper and the equally real enlightenment it has engendered amply vindicate it in my view - much more interesting & fun than the rather dull & worthy schematism of the -mysteriously to me- lauded 'google will eat itself' &c.

Pall Thayer 6 years, 11 months agoReply

I have to admit that it hadn't occurred to me to compare GWEI and Wikipedia Art. What I thought was interesting about the Wikipedia Art concept was the idea of anyone and everyone creating a work of art with no premise, no concept, no goals and no time-frame. That's also why I didn't (and don't) understand why it has to happen on Wikipedia. As a critique on Wikipedia itself it fails because we really have no right to critique it in the way that Wikipedia Art attempted. OK, that might be unnecessarily strong wording. Of course we have the right to critique whatever we want but something like Wikipedia doesn't have to listen. Google, on the other hand, should and here's why they're different. Wikipedia is a repository of information that has been produced specifically for Wikipedia and within the guidelines enforced by Wikipedia. Google is an aggregate repository of information, created by pulling information that wasn't produced specifically for them. They've built up an industry based on our work, that's why we have every right to critique them. Violating Google's terms of use has a very different meaning than violating Wikipedia's rules.

And just for the record, I think GWEI is one of the best pieces of Internet art out there, especially in the category of "activist" work, and is well deserving of all of the attention and recognition it has received.

Steve Tyro 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Wikipedia is great but I think there are limits to what it is able to accomplish. It's great to keep experimenting though. Keep pushing those limits.

advecia

Mamilee 6 years, 5 months agoReply

I heard that Wikimedia Foundation is trying to receive the rights for using the domain WikipediaArt.org

However, all those attempts have been vain.

Daniel 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Whether or not this piece intended to raise these issues regarding the inherent subjectivity of canonicity and authority, it has effectively raised them. The wikipedians are right that the piece doesn't belong in their encyclopedia, but they are deluded into thinking that they are achieving some sort of clinical objectivity via rational consensus (or that any such objectivity could ever be achieved).

<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1449626">Dog Obedience</a>

Daniel 6 years, 11 months agoReply


Whether or not this piece intended to raise these issues regarding the inherent subjectivity of canonicity and authority, it has effectively raised them. The wikipedians are right that the piece doesn't belong in their encyclopedia, but they are deluded into thinking that they are achieving some sort of clinical objectivity via rational consensus (or that any such objectivity could ever be achieved).

<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1449626">Dog Obedience</a>

T.Whid 6 years, 11 months agoReply

+++

This on-topic spam is interesting… can it really pay?

patrick lichty 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Tom Moody Wrote.
My outrage wasn’t mock and Lichty’s wasn’t outrage. He repeatedly cited his own academic credentials to justify the project. Now that it’s failed he claims to be blase about it. Either way, he played the Wikipedia editors for suckers-kind of icky.

As for the Cage, how many days did it take to come up with that? Everyone who undertakes a project like this thinks they’re Cage or Duchamp. What if they’re not?
tom moody // 22 Feb 2009, 6:11 pm


Regarding Tom’s commentary on my Rhizome posting @ Artfag..
Well, if it wasn't mock, then Tom needs a little perspective, a beer, a hug, a kitty, something. At the end of this I do get a little miffed at my character being questioned, but I'm being pretty honest abotu this.

The difference between today and the days of Black Mountain, is that I'm really not sure that Cage strategically planned to be Cage, and Maybe Duchamp did, but not like today. Today, today, people have media strategies and marketing plans as how to be who they are. Everyone has their schtick to one extent or another, especially Tom. If I had MORE of one, I'd probably be more "successful" as a festival/gallery artist. But I'm still a bit driven by my interests too much, and less by a pr/image/marketing plan.


I’m not blase, maybe a little jaded, maybe a touch clinical, as little about WPA was that surprising UNTIL they got into the inner community. Sure, WPA was a very tight little system. Arguing about that is moot.

As for my putting my own credentials behind it, it’s not icky - it’s sticky. That actually had a little risk to it, and almost has to do with things like Second Front, the Mattes, etc. Who should care about virtual performance art? But in all honesty, compared to the tactical media projects I’ve been involved in, art in general is a microcosm. Tempests in teapots, until you become someone like Steve Kurtz… Then they try to throw you away for life.

That’s not blase; that’s just speaking the facts.

The fact that (for some strange reason) we care about art is not blase, either - although the larger society may consider us academic/hermetic in our own right. Again, in many cases, the arguing is people fighting over scraps of credibility when there are so many better things to do. It's almost like a Star Trek Fan club, arguing whether Cage/Duchamp or Kirk/Spock are better - it's just a larger audience with far more real power.

0: I actually was not a progenitor of the project, but I thought it was “interesting” to see what they would do, and formally lent my support. Using my creds was probably necessary; although it probably didn’t help me that much. Took one for the team if it lessened my cred any, but you have to take risks once in a while.

1: Sure, it was strategic. Maybe one could also look at it as a model for critique of the contemporary “strategic” artist. I don’t find this that interesting, because the argument devolves quickly.

2: It did get interesting when I saw the arcane underbelly of Wikipedia, and I will never let my students cite from it again.

3: … (to be continued)

4: As for Tom’s “icky” and other comments during the Surfin Club debacle on Rhizome (another tempest/teapot. This pose of the growly troll is old - Josh Zeidner, Kandinskii, Lismore, Antiorp, Brad Brace, nn, integer, have all institutionalized this position as “anti-strategy” that’s just as much of a pose as a strategy. If it is not a pose, then see my previous comments.

4b: As for my veracity, as I told Joseph McElroy - I’m a pretty straight up person, and rarely pose for the camera. I just have a passion for art, and if I lost that, I’d walk. Many of today’s new media gang are about the PR game, positioning, strategies, and honestly - it works great, but I don't really do it. I do that a little bit if it fits the concept. Beyond that, while nothing’s pure, my veracity is still pretty much there - you see what you get, and it’s out of a spirit of support for a love of this stuff and support of the community. so for those of you who think otherwise, well, comments from people like the ‘nasty’ Tom Moody are often not worth a lot of my time. Although I’d buy him a couple rounds on the spot, were I ever to see him in the flesh.

And if I'm seen as disingenuous in any way at this point, then stay in your wilderness of mirrors, because I can't help you.
Patrick Lichty // 07 Mar 2009, 10:46 am

joeymimi 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Yeah, I saw that blog the other day. I think that some art would be eye catching but I can see why the idea is not embraced by everyone. You never know what you're going to get.
Forex Investment
Automated Forex

vijay 6 years, 11 months agoReply

50% wtf
50% ftw

Culinary Schools
Request Information from Culinary Schools in Your Area

kidNeutrino 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Vijay,

<applause> that is an apt description for most art .

-kN

John McArdle 6 years, 3 months agoReply

hey! remember the Suck my balls comment? you made to me? kharma Baby kharma!… You will see the difference between "right intentions and wrong intentions in your lifetime.

D 6 years, 3 months agoReply

@joeymimi

That is EXACTLY what Angela just said — why do you need to repeat it?!

Daria Online Recruitment

Richie 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Thats a great one. Enjoyed reading it thanks.

Richie
Make Money Online

Richie 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Maybe they aren't deluded about the possibility of "clinical objectivity via rational consensus", and don't actually need to be enlightened by brilliant avant-garde artistic interventions that will shatter their small-minded worldviews.

Richie
<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1473875">Make Money Online</a>

Andy 6 years, 11 months agoReply

Make what you will, but a similar project I initiated in 2007 was pulled from Wikipedia in a matter or hours - despite my best attempts to justify with reference. I launhed the same project through another wiki site - and you can view it at :
www.semicolon.wikidot.com
Note though that it has changed from its original form and the theoretical content has moved from the initial page due to user edits.
I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this

;

James Redder 6 years, 10 months agoReply

Like Angela said ". . .I think that some art would be eye catching but I can see why the idea is not embraced by everyone…" It really depends on what your likes and background experiences have been.

Founder Of Jump Higher

Lary 6 years, 10 months agoReply

Great Article! Bookmarked!

Earn Money Taking Online Surveys

andrew 6 years, 10 months agoReply

perhaps they were paid to do it? with all the credit card crisis going on at the moment you never know what people will lower themselves to doing to earn a few bucks

James 6 years, 10 months agoReply

Was it deleted due to conflict of interest? The domain has Wikipedia in it. What a waste of time and resources for people doing all the hard work and it was not even recognized.

Easy Diets | Fat Loss 4 Idiots Review

joe 6 years, 10 months agoReply

lot of that stuff happening these days on wikis…
Lose 10 Pounds

Audrina Lowe Audrina Lowe 6 years, 9 months agoReply

This is one of those projects that I and many other people are just not going to get. Do you know what I mean? What is the point of this concept. It does not deliver on the collobarative nature of all wiki sites….pointless, and I'm glad to see it getting panned everywhere.

baby shower games 6 years, 8 months agoReply

I hope i saw those blog, before it got deleted. Well, I guess the Wikipedia admin have enough reason to remove it, if it has a valuable content they will not removed it.

Internet Marketing 6 years, 8 months agoReply

"open but closed"… that is so well put. Did anyone catch the Episode of "The Office" where they are so very succinctly criticizing the authority of the Wikipedia. I wish I could remember the episode number… it's absolutely subvertly hilarious.

Fat loss 4 idiots 6 years, 7 months agoReply

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

Anthony 6 years, 7 months agoReply

yeah… wikis editors have all the say, they must have a reason for doing so.

˙ 6 years, 7 months agoReply

'Wikipedia Art' is utter bollocks.

I have no intention of helping to further legitimize it it by providing reasoned and cited debate to support my statement.

patrick lichty 6 years, 4 months agoReply

I just checked in with this thread again, and found:
*************
'Wikipedia Art' is utter bollocks.

I have no intention of helping to further legitimize it it by providing reasoned and cited debate to support my statement.
*************'

There was an admin by the name of Daniel Rigal who was probably the greatest catalyst for the canonization of WPA into a viable project. This is both expected/ironic as he was the most vociferous people against it. However, this is a very minor version of the usual tactical media formula - create a scene to elicit a response, and Rigal was probably the greatest responder, and therefore, outside of the 2 originators+3 "advocates", probably the greatest partner of the entire WPA project.

I can almost be certain given the language, etc, this is %80 of it being him, and if I were not so clinical about it, I almost feel a little troll-pleasure in this post. Of course people get angry for being taken for a ride.

I wonder as I write about it, I wonder if something with the power of tactical media practices should be used on relatively small matters like this? Of course, we can say that Miltos Manetas' Whitneybiennial.org project was a similar thing, but it snubbed more of a top-down organization.

My main satisfaction in WPA is that it showed me the underbelly of WikiPedia, and gave me a justification for banning it from the classroom as anything other than a tertiary source.

John McArdle 6 years, 3 months agoReply

This consumer based petro-chemical age, Well? What do you think? I've been posting subliminal messages, so far no one seems to have seriously responded. My theory. No one wants hard labor for low wages. Everyone wants to be a "rockstar-artist-musician" or someone important or wealthy. The farm is paid for I still need money? Money money money……I'm so much cooler than you!(don,t ake anything personal keep reading) I never got into playing stupid video games. The computer I,m presently using is a gift .My Friend a computer engineer. Who is underemployed and owns a small residential electrical contractor Co. Recycles used broken computers and re-builds them. I live an eclectic somewhat recluse lifestyle This is the best I can come up with for cheap entertainment (laughing) Art music it,s saturated Tons of starving artists…I,m still trying. The minimalist approach is the hardest. You have to compete with hollywood? No…. watch for my art in the future. Thanks. babylon john john mcardle

<a href= 6 years, 6 months agoReply

I hope i saw those blog, before it got deleted. Well, I guess the Wikipedia admin have enough reason to remove it, if it has a valuable content they will not removed it.

Shopping Deals 6 years, 4 months agoReply

This is very interesting stuff. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Patricia Ryans 6 years, 4 months agoReply

Well to be honest, I don't rely too much on Wikipedia esp. when I need some solid research. If anyone can easily add and delete an article, and if someone else can easily modify that article with little authorization from the original author, how reliable do you think such article could be! Maybe it is just me.

Anna Brown 5 years, 10 months agoReply

You're right.. I agree with you.. The same reason why I don't rely on wikipedia too.

Martha Jones 6 years, 3 months agoReply

Wow, pretty interesting thing about Wikipedia that I did not know about. Thanks for sharing it here. By the way, was Wikipedia able to resolve this matter?

John McArdle 6 years, 3 months agoReply

Wikipedia? My 1st impression was A Hawain-pediatric research institute Wiki- Hawai pedia-pediatrician but of course I was wrong. bABYLon joHN John McArdle. There is only so many resources available at any given time. Artists and Musicians scrambling for as much as they can get. Doesn,t anybody look back that has made it and help a "bloke" like me? NO! Spending my own time and money presently to bring you my humble feeble attempt in the universe. More money, better attempt. Soon I'll be relagated to spraying graffitti or something? If I can scratch up some money for spray paint? No, video/aRT/Music PLEASE endorse me financially Whoever you are! HELP HELP I need a grant writer or something. OR NO more aRT/Music/culture/opinion nothing! (relegated to a meager boring Day job) Emotional death of an artist and his soul and passion. Depression angst anxiety etc. PEACE?

John McArdle 6 years, 3 months agoReply

screw the typos, I'm not even getting paid!

John McArdle 6 years, 3 months agoReply

Comment by John McArdle
November 3, 2009 9:55 am
Yes! by all means! poke the stick in the wasp nest. Stir up controversy, create dialogue which incourages debate or pretentious and contentious comments. Snubbing my nose @ the establishment elite. Six figure or above salaried executives who try to run this consumer based petro-chemical nightmare. Which we all now know is not sustainable at current natural resource use. So your great great grandchildren will witness the demise of a once pristene planet. So what indulge your hedonistic desires. Go ahead persue that matierialistic goal. A NEW CAR (mercedes benz)- Convertible. A House in The Hamptons on Long Island. Purchase that winery in Napa valley california. See if i care? I'll be dead and gone and they will still be pouring new concrete foundations for nuclear power plants refinerys chemical plants. Just for once in your life "Throw the dog a bone!" ARF ARF! musicians busking on the streets. Poets philosophers sages "enlightened ones" Seeking a refuge. CONTACT ME "babylon john john mcardle" Upstate NY artists summer refuge and self sufficient farm has begun.(BINGHAMTON ITHACA area) Regardless of your greedy petty endeavors. Success is built on a mountain of failures. Adversity builds character. It is better than to have tried and failed and died in poverty and recluseness than to succomb to mediocrity and the status quo. Viva La Revolution!




John McArdle 6 years, 3 months agoReply

So far no responses I guess everyone is involved with thier own things and agenda, which is fine…..you should check my thread posts. I'm thinking they have to be different at the very least?

John McArdle 6 years, 3 months agoReply

Hello cyber puppies me BABYLON JOHN please look for my disscussion threads ( just another whackey artsist musician PEACE

Dan Puroclean 6 years, 3 months agoReply

Kildall is not anymore a troll or cyber squatting vandal than the reader who edits his Facebook page, or comments to a favorite blog or online news story. If anything, this whole thing is beginning to smell like a selfish little publicity stunt by Wikipedia to exclude and dismiss an internet phenomenon - public intervention - demonstrated by the huge successes of YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, and it’s own format - the world of Wiki.

Candy Jones 6 years, 2 months agoReply

j

Candy Jones 6 years, 2 months agoReply

Sorry.

What I wanted to say was that wiki is of limited value anyway, when any random member of the public can edit what is held there the value has to be questionable.

John McArdle 6 years, 2 months agoReply

Wikipedia? My 1st impression was A Hawain-pediatric research institute Wiki- Hawai pedia-pediatrician but of course I was wrong. bABYLon joHN John McArdle. There is only so many resources available at any given time. Artists and Musicians scrambling for as much as they can get. Doesn,t anybody look back that has made it and help a "bloke" like me? NO! Spending my own time and money presently to bring you my humble feeble attempt in the universe. More money, better attempt. Soon I'll be relagated to spraying graffitti or something? If I can scratch up some money for spray paint? No, video/aRT/Music PLEASE endorse me financially Whoever you are! HELP HELP I need a grant writer or something. OR NO more aRT/Music/culture/opinion nothing! (relegated to a meager boring Day job) Emotional death of an artist and his soul and passion. Depression angst anxiety etc. PEACE?

matata 6 years, 2 months agoReply

The illustrious postmodern world of design in the eyes of an internet monopoly. Wikipedia makes me laugh because any person opinion to update an archive is a recipe for disaster. Remember when they said Heavy D died and he was like what? lol
www.zebrasskinrug.com

John McArdle 6 years, 2 months agoReply

(Cyber-Busking) HELLO! yes, It,s me again BABYLON JOHN - JOHN MCARDLE yes I,m trying to expose myself. I desperately need financial funding except I've never done that or asked anyone. Everything so far I've done with my own time and financial resources, which have been meager. Please Feel free to contact me if you have any suggestions. My e-mail: dogjuice011@yahoo BABYLON JOHN JOHN MCARDLE @ myspace @facebook ……………………… @RHIZOME ..snail mail address: JFMc P.O. Box 13 13863-0013 I would like to collaborate with other artists and musicians. I have several projects currently in the works. Here is my phone number too (john) 607 863 4005. I just know there is someone out there that will "feel me" and the message I have sent out into this universe. I call this one CYBER BUSKING.

. 6 years, 1 month agoReply

.

Creative Zen 6 years agoReply

hi

rhizgnome 6 years agoReply

my friend was able to legitimize a nickname he and our friends gave Jim Edmonds ("Hollywood Edmonds") by getting it in the article with weasel words and then having a sports journalist reference the nickname in an article which gave him the reference he needed to backup the nickname. bing bong!

Timur 5 years, 10 months agoReply

Do you think that all them artists of this piece are that necessarily referencing either philosopher. I think that if the project was meant to preach to wikipedia editors, then it comes across as preachy.

patrick lichty 5 years, 10 months agoReply

curt cloninger 5 years, 10 months agoReply

Patrick, why isn't this your new facebook picture?
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2718/4465114828_14d3484d45.jpg[/img]

Ctrl Alt Elite 5 years, 5 months agoReply

Classic.

You guys should start your own art wiki on your own site, screw wikipedia.

John McArdle 5 years, 10 months agoReply

YAK ReMiX YAK ReMiX YAK ReMiX Cornell University ITHACA NEW YORK "THUMPTY" Thursday April 8th YAK ReMiX YAK ReMiX YAK ReMiX. babylon john john mcardle drums…………..kyle veenema lead guitar vocals……….Jim Turner Bass.

Benjamin Dorian 5 years, 10 months agoReply

Hmm. What happened to my previous comment? Is this moderated?


That is some beautiful artwork. What is the theme and meaning behind the theme of it? Please share. Once again, thanks for the dialogue

paul duncan 5 years, 8 months agoReply

I dont understand why a directory of artwork was deleted?

Jim Cassa 5 years, 5 months agoReply

I love viewing creative blogs. I cannot do it myself, but appreciate all good artwork.

Psychic Medium

Mark Riccharsa 5 years, 5 months agoReply

I hadnt heard of the creative blogs until now. thanks for the post and comments.

Cesar Vega 5 years, 4 months agoReply

Thank you for writing this awesome article

Kevin Cheng 5 years, 3 months agoReply

Wiki editor is always has the final say

Kande Gan 5 years, 1 month agoReply

thanks