From Slashdot:



For shits and giggles, compare and contrast this statement by Mike Godwin with WP's policy on NLT for further examples of how WP is off in its own little world:



Try "outlining your legal concerns" on an article on WP and count how many seconds it is until you get hit with a block.

And... could Wikipedia Review be next?!?

Godwin is perfectly right to be concerned about the use of a trademark that causes confusion with of some kind of official sanction or relationship. Any other corporation, for-profit or non-profit, would have the same concerns. The problem is that Wikipedia, board, staff and "community" have all been so full of themselves about "information wanting to be free."

Hopefully this will produce some degree of rift between WP and the libertarian techie press, which always flies to WP defense when anyone attempts to impose any form of accountability on the project. This has been a serious problem because the are usually the "first on the scene" when these issues arise and tend to set the narrative by the time the mainstream press arrives. Maybe this oppressive attack on the absolute libertarian rights of these noble artistes will develop into a very different kind of "skull dance."


As to Wikipedia Review being "next," no reasonable person could believe that WR could have any official connections with them.

Some good points, GBG



Whilst it was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, a remark about the "WP:CHILLING" effect of a "WP:NLT", I admit to being somewhat amused by your reference to "reasonable person"s in regards to Wikipedia

This is just the WMF (by way of its outsourced IP protection firm) defending its trademarks. The WikipediaArt people can probably avoid an issue by putting up a clear disclaimer about not being affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. But, being drama queens (whodathunkit) they instead fired off the outrage cannon, knowing full well that Slashdot and the EFF and related would pick up the banner and charge for them -- and in so doing creating exposure and (quite probably) revenue for them. These are performance artists we're talking about: they thrive on controversy and any chance to create more is in their interest.

The fact that the EFF has no remaining love for Mike Godwin can't help matters either.

Us libertarians are philosophically consistent, which might make it sometimes seem like we're "changing sides" when viewed from a clique-centered world view; we support Wikipedia against people who want to restrict the freedoms it exercises, and we oppose Wikipedia when it tries itself to crack down on freedom.

Tagged for Web Searches under •

That's a pretty good answer. I think it might be more true of yourself than the techie press. They are not beyond demonizing nor hero-worshiping.

The only thing consistent about DT's philosloppy is that he consistently supports the freedom of a small cabal of idiots to do whatever they please against the freedom of everyone else in the world to be free of their idiocy.

Jon Awbrey

Unfortunately, I lack the freedom to be free of your idiocy.

Feel free to exercise your WR Rite To Disapparate.

DT Ja Ja

Who is forcing you read to read Wikipedia Review?

Indeed, and this forum has an Ignore User function, too. (Just a meta note, here)

I would think Wikipedia Art would be fine as long it's evident they are separate from Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Libertarians philosophically consistent?

Pull one of the other ones, it's got bells on it.

I'm still trying to figure out what Mr. Tobias's comment has to do with the subject...

I'd say the more critical issue here is that these people went to a considerable amount of trouble to set up a "performance art project" whose objective, apparently, was to produce a Wikipedia article whose creation and the events surrounding it would make the project itself "notable" enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. (Hey, post-modernism!) Did they know in advance that their article would be shot down in less than a day? Anyone who knew the "rules" would have known that.

So now, they've already been Slashdotted, they've appeared on several tech-media news sites... what are the chances they'll ultimately succeed in getting an article about their "project" kept? They're already claiming to be "notable" on this basis alone.

I'd give them about 30 percent, but it's still early days yet. Depends on whether or not anything genuinely newsworthy happens during the next 3-5 days, like a major volcanic eruption or a 6-year-old "Young Miss Pageant" contestant disappearing from her parents' home under mysterious circumstances.

Wasn't there something like that in the Brandt case, where WP was finally arguing that Brandt had become so notable in his attempts to get his BLP removed, that if he wasn't notable before it went up, he certainly had become so, since.

c.f. the old joke about writing the FBI to find out if they have a file on you, and getting the answer: "We do now."

In the above case, WP will decide that they're being gamed, and will refuse to create the article on the episode, per WP:POINT. And will stick at that, even if the whole thing blows up to being a national wire story. Of course, long before admitting defeat they'll rename the issue in order to credibly claim they weren't gamed....

A quote from the Shining Libertarian D. Tobias.


Libertarians are consistent, you're not Mr DTobias. Any one who defends and enables a brutal Thugocracy of the JimBo Wikipeidiot syber swamp , is not a "Libertarian".

You should be classified more as a "Henchmen" of an evil enterprise which has no respect for Truth, The works of other people, or The reputations of people and does violence to the concept of the fairness. I would classify you as an anointed JimBO priest of his Cult of lies, dam lies and wikilove.

What about when it tries to crack down on the freedom of people who want to restrict the freedoms it exercises?

Most libertarians I've met aren't philosophically consistent at all. They just define "freedom" as fitting in with whatever whims they've decided to support in politics. Kind of like the way Mike Godwin has defined First Amendment rights, actually.

This is not to say that you necessarily fit in that category, but only to say that it's silly to equate "libertarian" with "philosophically consistent".

Can't Sing, Mod Will Baleet Me.


The antidote to Freedom of Speech is the Freedom to Not Listen.

Failing that, there is always Moulton's Morgue.