Wikipedia editors vote against classifying NFTs as art

0
71

A group of editors at Wikipedia, a free user-generated encyclopedia, voted against classifying NFTs as a form of art and agreed to shelve the issue at a later date.

Research and debate began on the platform at the end of December, focusing on the sale of the most expensive art by living artists and whether the sale of NFT art should be considered an “art sale” or an “NFT sale”. Deployed to.

“Wikipedia can’t determine what’s considered art, so including NFTs in your own list, whether art or not, makes things a lot easier,” said editor “jonas.” Is writing.

Much of the debate focused on whether NFTs represent art or are just tokens separate from the underlying art. Some editors were torn by the definition and felt that they lacked reliable information to draw conclusions.

The voting call found five editors who opposed including NFTs in art sales and one editor who supported them. On January 12, there was consensus that Pak’s $ 91 million NFT collection and Beeple’s $ 69 million NFT were removed from the top art sales list and discussions resumed at a later date.

This decision is controversial, especially when you look at Beeple’s NFT “Everydays: The First 5000 Days,” which depicts a collage of the original artwork of a famous digital artist sold at the famous Christie’s art auction house last March. It seems to be the target. The New York Times also described Beeple as the “third-selling artist” alive at the time.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, no disgrace or voting is required to form a consensus. To make a decision, the consensus must take into account the legitimate concerns of all participating editors contained in the platform’s policies.

What do Wikipedia editors know anyway?

However, the consensus position did not work with the only NFT support editor “Pmmccurdy” that claimed:

“How can we reach a consensus when we insist on including NFTs in this list from the beginning? NFT art is positioned as art by the overwhelming evidence from secondary sources. Therefore, it is worth including in this list. “

“If Beeple and Pak agree to be artists, why aren’t their sales on this list? I don’t know the logic here,” they added.

The editor, Silicon Red, replied that the consensus they were reading was: In my understanding, this incorporates all concerns, including you. ”

Related: Wiki contributors want to stop donating cryptocurrencies over environmental issues

NFT supporters such as Griffin Cock Foster, co-founder of Nifty Gateway, were frustrated by this issue. attention On Twitter earlier today:

“This is pretty messed up. Wikipedia mods say that NFTs can’t be art. For example, NFTs can’t be classified as art.”

Foster’s twin brother Duncan also named it “Art Emergency” to put the community into action through a post retweeted by Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss.

“Wikipedia works based on precedent. If an NFT is classified as” not art “on this page, the rest of Wikipedia is classified as” not art “. Wikipedia is a global source of truth for many people around the world. The stake couldn’t be higher anymore! ” He said

Everipedia, a decentralized Web3 equivalent to Wikipedia, Responded To the platform by comparing approaches to NFT and art:

“Everipedia editors have created over 100 pages #NFT A collection while Wikipedia is moving to mark NFTs as “not art” across the platform. It’s time for the NFT project to move to Everipedia $ IQ, A Web3.0 encyclopedia that supports art and innovation. “

This is not the first time Wikipedia has had problems reporting cryptographic information. Cointelegraph reported in September 2020 that anti-crypto activist and senior Wikipedia editor David Gerard helped remove entries related to Australian blockchain software company PowerLedger.

Despite entries from reputable publications such as TechCrunch and The Economic, Gerard said the post was “a mountain of churnalism in press releases and the only real coverage of how PowerLedger was a scam. It was deleted because it was. ” Times.