I used to love Wikipedia, then I got annoyed with it when the community got to be what I considered over zealous in their administration of the site, and then I started to like it again after some time, but now this may be the last straw.
The EFF and others are reporting that Wikipedia is telling Wikipediaart.org that they can't use the "wikipedia" name in their domain name. I am thinking about writing the lawyer spearheading this effort, Doug Isenberg, to share my thoughts on the matter.
However, I'm not yet sure how I feel about it. So let me start by openly thinking about it in writing. Wikipedia as an organization has a right to protect its name, but since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, its collaborators should, I believe, have a say in what legal actions it takes. Writing that leads me to think about the actions Facebook recently took to update its user terms of service. Why doesn't Wikipedia do something like that?
Reading about how Wikipediaart.org came to be is quite revealing about what I see as the downside of Wikipedia. It goes like this:
I agree with Scott Kindall that it is ironic that he donated to Wikipedia last year and that his funds are being used in a legal action against himself.Let's try and see things from Wikipedia's point of view too. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I believe that United States trademark law requires that businesses and organizations actively protect their trademarks if they are to ever expect them to be enforceable. This came to light with the "Linux" trademark and I believe that there has been some action against trademark misuse. BUT, as anyone who is familiar with linux and the internet, there are also many domain names with "linux" in them, commercial and non-profit, which as far as I am aware have not been pressured to give up their domain.
With this in mind, I think a more appropriate course of action for Wikipedia's legal team would have been to contact Wikipediaart.org, acknowledge their use, and give them permission to use the name as long as the site stands in good faith with general wikipedia principles. So far, its seems glaringly obvious that the folks behind wikipediaart.org are not out to cause Wikipedia any harm, that is, unlike wikipediasucks.org, for example. Wikipediasucks.com is also registered, but doesn't have a website. Those sites may be protected under parody or criticism fair uses, but again I'm not a lawyer - I'm not sure if the parody use would exclude a domain registrant from cyber-squatting laws.
Lastly, I've decided to throw myself into the ring and registered the wikipediart.org domain name. This should be interesting!
There are some interesting stories related to this topic:
The EFF and others are reporting that Wikipedia is telling Wikipediaart.org that they can't use the "wikipedia" name in their domain name. I am thinking about writing the lawyer spearheading this effort, Doug Isenberg, to share my thoughts on the matter.
However, I'm not yet sure how I feel about it. So let me start by openly thinking about it in writing. Wikipedia as an organization has a right to protect its name, but since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, its collaborators should, I believe, have a say in what legal actions it takes. Writing that leads me to think about the actions Facebook recently took to update its user terms of service. Why doesn't Wikipedia do something like that?
Reading about how Wikipediaart.org came to be is quite revealing about what I see as the downside of Wikipedia. It goes like this:
- An inexperienced Wikipedia user has a good idea for a page or similar at Wikipedia, and they add content to get things started
- Without much debate or explanation, experienced Wikipedia users quickly shoot down and remove, delete, or otherwise block the new idea from getting started
- The inexperienced user is disheartened, and seeks another outlet for their creativity.
- The experienced Wikipedia user repeats the process and starts to get power hungry.
I agree with Scott Kindall that it is ironic that he donated to Wikipedia last year and that his funds are being used in a legal action against himself.Let's try and see things from Wikipedia's point of view too. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I believe that United States trademark law requires that businesses and organizations actively protect their trademarks if they are to ever expect them to be enforceable. This came to light with the "Linux" trademark and I believe that there has been some action against trademark misuse. BUT, as anyone who is familiar with linux and the internet, there are also many domain names with "linux" in them, commercial and non-profit, which as far as I am aware have not been pressured to give up their domain.
With this in mind, I think a more appropriate course of action for Wikipedia's legal team would have been to contact Wikipediaart.org, acknowledge their use, and give them permission to use the name as long as the site stands in good faith with general wikipedia principles. So far, its seems glaringly obvious that the folks behind wikipediaart.org are not out to cause Wikipedia any harm, that is, unlike wikipediasucks.org, for example. Wikipediasucks.com is also registered, but doesn't have a website. Those sites may be protected under parody or criticism fair uses, but again I'm not a lawyer - I'm not sure if the parody use would exclude a domain registrant from cyber-squatting laws.
Lastly, I've decided to throw myself into the ring and registered the wikipediart.org domain name. This should be interesting!
There are some interesting stories related to this topic:
- Ahmanson.org was pressured by WaMu into giving up their domain name, but held fast and won. Now where's WaMu
- Reznor.com was pressured to give up the domain, but resisted, and still has it today. The funny part is that the company that did the pressuring, Thomas & Betts, registered reznorsucks.com shortly after they started their effort to legally steal reznor.com. I agree with the author of that site with regards to this statement:
"In my own opinion, any goodwill Thomas & Betts has established is diluted by the thuglike tactics displayed in the letter from their attorneys, Hoffmann & Baron, LLP."
I've been close to this story since day one. You might want to read my interviews with the two artists. Are the artists 'trolls'as Jimmy Wales has called them? I don't think so-- not anymore than some of the longtime Wikipedia editors who mark articles about artists as not notable even though the subjects of the articles have exhibited in museums and so on.
On Wikipedia a baseball player who only played one game is considered notable, a politician who never won an election can be notable without question-- but artists who have exhibited in a few museums often have articles about them questioned or speedy deleted. That appears to happen often.
Read:
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/wikipedia-art-virtual-fireside-chat.html
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/04/art-space-talk-scott-kildall-and.html
Hi Brian, thanks for commenting and the links. I've found the Wikipedia definition of "notable" to be fleeting at best.