The talkpage is actually quite funny. This "official decision" was made by a few Wiki-nobodies. Result? Bad publicity! You just KNOW that high-rank insiders plus WMF employees saw this and started arguing amongst themselves--and refuse to discuss it with "outsiders".
screenshot-en.wikipedia.org-2022.01.17-17_28_07.png (180.54 KiB) Viewed 2207 times
Wikipedia isn't an "encyclopedia" anyway, so nyaaaah.
Also, back in 2018 "SiliconRed" wrote a screed on his blog attempting to encourage people to edit. Doesn't appear anyone took him up on it. Perhaps if this NFT squabble gets ugly enough, the Wiki-Fan-Boy will bail out in disgust.
Re: Wikipedia editors vote that nfts aren't art
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:52 am
by wexter
Personally, I have been "bootlegging" NFT art, printing it out on Shutterfly, and then framing them. At 18c each times 9 plus a $20 frame I have access to present day POP art. In the set and subset sort of way, Not all NFT's constitute or contain artwork.
Its really a way for block chain fanatics to falsely claim they have voraciously and vicariously copyrighted something someone else has created.. eg poor mans copyright via self addressed stamped envelope that some other third party assigned to you.. Good luck to you if you think you can protect block-chain immortalized IP.
I would also argue that the Bored Ape is very Fungible.
I think NFT should really stand for Nincompoops Following Trends.
Re: Wikipedia editors vote that nfts aren't art
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:59 am
by ericbarbour
the whole thing is begging for abuse and mockery
ape1.jpg (63.34 KiB) Viewed 2168 times
ape3.jpg (56.56 KiB) Viewed 2168 times
ape4.jpg (54.33 KiB) Viewed 2168 times
Re: Wikipedia editors vote that nfts aren't art
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:05 am
by wexter
PS: the only correct thing said in talk is;
One way or another, This list is wrong
Wikipedia speaks for itself - everything is wrong! lol
I vote that we change "Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape."
To "Keep your stinking paws off my damn dirty NFT-ape!"
Re: Wikipedia editors vote that nfts aren't art
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:01 am
by wexter
Looks like more Bored apes Got Bored and Wandered Off.
Anyway a blogger that I follow realized something Wikipedia does not consider
Whenever you read something on the Internet, assume the story is false, exaggerated, slanted, or otherwise fabricated or manipulated.
It looks like bias flows from falsehoods, exaggerations, agenda, clickbait, and manipulation right into the echo chamber that is Wikipedia. BTW I got bitch-slapped I have been WP:DENIED
WP:DENY. This is beyond Civil POV pushing. It is clear the IP user is more interested in incoherent ranting than actual discussion (see talk page history).
Also, back in 2018 "SiliconRed" wrote a screed on his blog attempting to encourage people to edit. Doesn't appear anyone took him up on it. Perhaps if this NFT squabble gets ugly enough, the Wiki-Fan-Boy will bail out in disgust.
Hilariously, he used the 2011 statistic that only 9% of users are women. It's doubtful they could run such a survey in these times, what with all the trannies, nonbinaries, and assorted freaks and geeks. if they did, the percentage of "women" is likely higher. there are at least three former sysops or sysops who went lesbian tranny: a) Passley, b) Keyes, c) Will Noble/Sceptre.
