In 2022, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have become a household name now. These so-called “digital collectibles” have seen a meteoric rise in 2021.
To sum up, NFTs have taken the world by storm in recent years. It is through NFTs that digital artists get the recognition they deserve. However, people seem divided when it comes to considering it an “art”. Consider This – What if Wikipedia categorized NFT as “non-art”. In this case, it would be nothing less than a drama. Well, that was indeed the storyline of a recent brawl on the social media platform.
Artistic emergency declaration
According to an ongoing debate on Wikipedia, the possibility of officially categorizing NFTs as “not art” is currently in vogue. The free user-generated encyclopedia voted against classifying NFTs as an art form. Much of the discussion focused on whether an NFT represented art. Or, if it was just a separate token from the underlying art. Some felt that there was a lack of reliable information from which to draw conclusions.
According to this debate, the situation was as follows: Six votes object to inclusion NFT sales as art. And, zero votes in favor of including NFT sales in art. Needless to say, this could create havoc considering Wikipedia’s reach across the globe.
It all started on the platform at the end of December. In fact, some of those sales have grossed over $90 million. Nevertheless, on January 12, a consensus was reached to suppress large coin sales. Like Pak’s $91 million NFT collection and Beeple’s $69 million NFT in the best-selling art list, and reopening the discussion at a later date.
One of Gemini’s trainee executives with a Twitter account, ‘Duncan Coq Foster‘ in a series of tweets affected on all these aspects. He even shed light on the seriousness of this situation in a tweet that read:
Wikipedia operates on a precedent. If NFTs are classified as “no art” on this page, then they will be classified as “no art” on the rest of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the global source of truth for many people around the world. The stakes couldn’t be higher!
– Duncan Cock Foster (@DCCockFoster) January 12, 2022
NFT supporters such as Nifty Gateway co-founder Griffin Cock Foster reiterate the same narrative affirmed,
“It’s pretty messed up to see – Wikipedia mods are trying to say that *no* NFT can be art – as in, if it’s an NFT, it can’t be classified as art. Not all NFTs are art – it’s a flexible medium after all – but many are 100% art. Take action and spread the word!”
One or more loopholes?
According to NFT collector Duncan Cock Foster, the NFT community needs to combine and showcase its true potential.
The best way to do this is to educate an experienced Wikipedia editor on this topic.
You can edit the page yourself, but Wikipedia runs on reputation, so we need editors with editing history to enter the debate
– Duncan Cock Foster (@DCCockFoster) January 12, 2022
What’s more, Everipedia, a decentralized Web3 equivalent of Wikipedia took advantage of this situation. He responded to the platform by comparing his approach to NFTs and art:
Everipedia editors have created over 100 pages on #NFT collections while Wikipedia is set to mark NFTs as “no art” on their platform.
It’s time for NFT projects to move to Everipedia $IQ, a web 3.0 encyclopedia that supports art and innovation.https://t.co/tL5beVDCN9 https://t.co/SsNFoQmyBd
– Everipedia (@Everipedia) January 12, 2022
Nevertheless, it was not the first dance for Wikipedia. He had problems with the communication of information related to cryptography. Anti-crypto activist and Wikipedia editor David Gerard took center stage then. It deleted an entry relating to Australian blockchain software company Power Ledger.
