Sunday, February 5

A group of Wikipedia platform editors voted against classifying NFTs as art

A group of Wikipedia editors have voted against classifying NFTs as an art form. However, they have reached a consensus to resume the discussion at a later date.

At the end of December of last year, a survey and debate began on the Wikipedia platform that revolved around the most expensive art sales and whether NFT art sales should be considered “art sales” or “art sales”. of NFTs”.

“Wikipedia can’t really be in the business of deciding what counts as art or not, so putting NFTs, art or not, on their own list makes things a lot simpler. NFTs have their own list, which must be linked in the article, and entries generally should not be included in both.” Wrote the editor «Jonas» in the discussion.

Much of the discussion focused on whether an NFT represented a “type of art” or whether it was simply a token independent of the underlying art. The editors were divided on the definitions, with some feeling that reliable information was lacking to reach a conclusion.

In the vote, five publishers opposed including NFTs in the art sales category and only one supported them. On January 12, a consensus was reached to remove sales such as Pak’s NFT collection, which reached $91 million, from the list of best art sales. And Beeple’s NFT, which cost $69 million, however, it was agreed that another discussion would take place at a later date.

What do Wikipedia editors know?

The decision seems controversial when looking at Beeple’s NFT “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” specifically. Which represents a collage of original works of art by a renowned digital artist that was sold at the prestigious art auction house Christie’s, in March of last year. The New York Times also described Beeple as the “third best-selling living artist” at the time.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, neither unanimity nor a vote is required to form a consensus. In reaching a decision, the consensus must take into account all legitimate concerns of participating publishers that fall within the platform’s policies.

However, the consensus decision was not well received by the only publisher that supports NFTs, “Pmmccurdy”. Who argued: “How can we have a consensus when, from the beginning, I have defended the inclusion of NFTs in this list? The overwhelming evidence from secondary sources places NFT art as art and therefore worthy of inclusion on this list.”

“If we agree that Beeple and Pak are artists, why don’t their sales count on this list? I don’t understand the logic here.”

“NFTs should be removed from this list for now, with the intention of reopening the discussion at a later date.” Commented the editor «SiliconRed».

Likewise, NFT advocates such as Nifty Gateway co-founder Griffin Cock Foster were upset by the discussion. pointing at Twitter that: “This is quite complicated to see; Wikipedia editors are trying to say that no NFT can be art. Something like… if it’s an NFT, it can’t be classified as art.”

The NFT community on Twitter came to the defense

Also Everipedia, a decentralized equivalent of Wikipedia on the Web3, answered to the platform by comparing its approach to NFTs and art.

“Everipedia editors have created over 100 pages on NFT collections while Wikipedia is moving to categorize NFTs as ‘non-art’ across its entire platform. It’s time for NFT projects to move to Everipedia $IQ. A Web 3.0 encyclopedia supporting art, NFTs and innovation. commented on Twitter the official Everipedia account.

"There is an ongoing debate on Wikipedia that has the potential to officially categorize NFTs as -not art- on all of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is a global source of truth.  Having NFTs categorized as -not art- would be a disaster!".  Source: Twitter
NFT advocate Twitter user @DCCockFoster wrote: “Wikipedia is a global source of truth. To have NFTs categorized as -not art- would be a disaster!” Fountain: Twitter

This is not the first time that Wikipedia has run into trouble with information related to cryptocurrencies and NFTs. In September 2020, it was revealed that anti-cryptocurrency activist and Wikipedia editor David Gerard, used their influence on the website, to remove an informative post related to Australian Blockchain software firm Power Ledger.

Gerard stated that the news entry was removed for being a bunch of “churnalism” releases (a pejorative term for a type of journalism). And the only genuine press coverage was about how “Power Ledger was a scam.” Even though the entry originated from reputable publications like TechCrunch and The Economic Times.