While I do respect the wikimedia efforts, it is a hard bargain on this on this one. I am unsure of what this is really going to accomplish.

On the homepage of wikipediaart "This web site documents a performance art work that promotes critical analyses of the nature of art, knowledge and Wikipedia. It is not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way. The Wikipedia website is located at wikipedia.org"

I wonder how long that has to stay there...

"this particular page of Wikipedia history is quickly revised by the Wikipedian powers that be."

I've been close to the Wikipedia Art story since day one. You might want to read my interviews with the two artists. Are the artists 'trolls'as Jimmy Wales has called them? I don't think so-- not anymore than some of the longtime Wikipedia editors who mark articles about artists as not notable even though the subjects of the articles have exhibited in museums and so on.

On Wikipedia a baseball player who only played one game is considered notable, a politician who never won an election can be notable without question-- but artists who have exhibited in a few museums often have articles about them questioned or speedy deleted unless they have been reviewed in the New York Times or one of the longstanding art magazines. That appears to happen often.

Read:

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/wikipedia-art-virtual-fireside-chat.html

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/04/art-space-talk-scott-kildall-and.html