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 <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
2009/4/25 Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com>om>:
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
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l