Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
some wikipedia bullshit
so basically, some nerds tried to make a wikipedia page called wikipedia art which was supposed to be a collaborative digital aesthetic object completely sculpted by the devices of whoever felt like they should change it yesterday. a day later, it looks like this.
first of all, since when is wikipedia an encyclopedia? i can't reference it in a paper. it's the opinion of an infinite mass of people, whose versimilitude's legitimized entirely by citing other shit that's on the internet. wikipedia's just the internet, only a little bourgier.
Delete: Please note that, transgressive though they were, the Surrealists played “exquisite corpses” using their own notepaper. They did not try to scrawl it the margins of a library book. This is the problem. Nobody objects to a Wiki based artwork. The problem is that it can’t be inserted into Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not just a Wiki. It is an encyclopedia. It is no more appropriate to add non-encyclopaedic content here than it is to write stuff in library books. - Daniel Rigal
yeah, well the surrealists were all just pussy dadaists who wanted to make that money. and i don't know anyone who was ever pissed off when they found some tits drawn in a library book.
Delete: This could never be properly sourced, as it could only exist here first before it could ever be written about in order for it to be notable enough to be mentioned here. Yes, an interesting paradox, but that’s not our problem. We can only go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it’s pretty clear that this needs to be deleted. But here’s an idea: the fact that this was attempted and subsequently deleted could possibly generate enough third-party coverage to make the initial project notable enough to be included (at least as part of the artists’ articles). But until then, it cannot stay. It’s not encyclopedic as an entirely self-referential article. - freshacconci
great! so the project can still exist because you can link back to it! but it can't exist here! because you can't link back to it! then again, now that "wikipedia art" is such a violent and self-destructive concept, it's kind of cute that this guy opens up the possibility for a wikipedia article about a wikipedia art project that got deleted off of wikipedia
first of all, since when is wikipedia an encyclopedia? i can't reference it in a paper. it's the opinion of an infinite mass of people, whose versimilitude's legitimized entirely by citing other shit that's on the internet. wikipedia's just the internet, only a little bourgier.
Delete: Please note that, transgressive though they were, the Surrealists played “exquisite corpses” using their own notepaper. They did not try to scrawl it the margins of a library book. This is the problem. Nobody objects to a Wiki based artwork. The problem is that it can’t be inserted into Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not just a Wiki. It is an encyclopedia. It is no more appropriate to add non-encyclopaedic content here than it is to write stuff in library books. - Daniel Rigal
yeah, well the surrealists were all just pussy dadaists who wanted to make that money. and i don't know anyone who was ever pissed off when they found some tits drawn in a library book.
Delete: This could never be properly sourced, as it could only exist here first before it could ever be written about in order for it to be notable enough to be mentioned here. Yes, an interesting paradox, but that’s not our problem. We can only go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it’s pretty clear that this needs to be deleted. But here’s an idea: the fact that this was attempted and subsequently deleted could possibly generate enough third-party coverage to make the initial project notable enough to be included (at least as part of the artists’ articles). But until then, it cannot stay. It’s not encyclopedic as an entirely self-referential article. - freshacconci
great! so the project can still exist because you can link back to it! but it can't exist here! because you can't link back to it! then again, now that "wikipedia art" is such a violent and self-destructive concept, it's kind of cute that this guy opens up the possibility for a wikipedia article about a wikipedia art project that got deleted off of wikipedia
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
