Comments on: WikiWorld Illustrated http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/11/16/wikiworld-illustrated/ New Media researcher Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:55:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: andrew http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/11/16/wikiworld-illustrated/#comment-4744 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:23:46 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/11/16/wikiworld-illustrated/#comment-4744 I agree putting them prominently in the articles in Wikipedia is problematic and irrelevant as an encyclopaedic function. They are in Commons, which means they are part of a body of visual, audio and video works that folks are free to use. As for the trademark, Brad Patrick the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has engaged with conversations with the creator, so it appears they have worked something out. You may want to contact him directly though. I agree putting them prominently in the articles in Wikipedia is problematic and irrelevant as an encyclopaedic function. They are in Commons, which means they are part of a body of visual, audio and video works that folks are free to use.

As for the trademark, Brad Patrick the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has engaged with conversations with the creator, so it appears they have worked something out. You may want to contact him directly though.

]]> by: JossBuckle Swami http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/11/16/wikiworld-illustrated/#comment-4742 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:53:18 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/11/16/wikiworld-illustrated/#comment-4742 I'm confused. (A) How is this artist's use of the Wikipedia "puzzle globe" logo in his own logo NOT a trademark violation? (B) How is it not a violation of Wikipedia's own "conflict of interest" guidelines for this cartoonist to post his OWN artwork into Wikipedia articles? Granted, they're cute cartoons. But Wikipedia isn't a CV-building bulletin board, and I don't think most researchers are looking for cartoons when they look up a topic. I’m confused. (A) How is this artist’s use of the Wikipedia “puzzle globe” logo in his own logo NOT a trademark violation? (B) How is it not a violation of Wikipedia’s own “conflict of interest” guidelines for this cartoonist to post his OWN artwork into Wikipedia articles?

Granted, they’re cute cartoons. But Wikipedia isn’t a CV-building bulletin board, and I don’t think most researchers are looking for cartoons when they look up a topic.

]]> by: WikiWorld: Beautiful Cartoons based on Wikipedia Articles « Daveydweeb.blog http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/11/16/wikiworld-illustrated/#comment-4318 Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:49:49 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/11/16/wikiworld-illustrated/#comment-4318 [...] read more | digg story [...] […] read more | digg story […]

]]>