Talk:Internet art

message: Although all the terms around internet art and net art don't translate 1:1 between German and English, it may be of interest for german reading net art and internet art freaks or writers, how the german Wikipedia makes a difference between "Netzkunst" (broader meaning than Internet Art) and "Kunst mit Netzwerken" (≠ Art with Networks). Describing the first as being rooted in the more technical context of early electronic networking and the latter as being rooted in the more sociological approach, as it was basic for Ray Johnson or Robert Filliou.--Fluss 05:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsorted text

message: A lot of the links are to online galleries and collections of traditional art (including computer art).  These are only internet art in the sense that the internet is used to transmit the art.  But internet art per the article is art where the internet is the art medium in its own right, and not merely a distribution channel.  Etoy was given as an example.  By analogy, "TV art" might refer to art using TV as a medium; an example might be a giant sculpture made out of TV sets.  It would not include normal movies that were merely shown on TV.  So I think the external links for this article should be cleaned up, with the traditional-art links moved to some other suitable article.  Thoughts? Phr 07:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are looking for DMOZ and not Wikipedia? :-) Haakon 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why have the links being restored? This is an open invitation to SPAM! Asterion talk to me 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the links, but there seemed to be much resistance over it, so I reinstated them. I agree completely that it is a huge bunch of spam, so if you want to be the one taking flak for removing them, please do and I will certainly defend it. Haakon 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a Request for Comments needs to be filed. We cannot simply change Wikipedia policies like that. Asterion talk to me 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links section 

message: To resolve the disagreement over whether the (in my opinion) rather large link collection should stay or go, I requested comments. Some people have said that they found the links useful, while my stated opinion is "the huge link collection detracts from the value of this article, and conflicts with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not". See the discussion in the section above. Discuss. Haakon 10:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links on this page conflicts with link style used on nearly every other article - there is also a clear consensus that Wikipedia should not be a collection of links. 70% of this article are links which is entirely too much. My suggestion: Remove all links and point to a relevant repository of links in a External links section, per usage on other pages. Henrik 12:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. All links should be removed and an alternative link to the DMOZ directory or similar provided. Also, considering that many of these links could be considered as "vanity", things are even clearer. Asterion talk to me 12:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree, WP is not a link collector, no links unless they are notable in some way that isn't covered in WP Sunhawk 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As no new comments had been posted for a while and all those who had said something seemed to be in favor of removing the collection I have now been bold and done so. Henrik 16:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, another thing: I agree with the point above that a selection of links may be helpful, but I feel it to be best to start with a clean slate at this time. Useful links can always be readded. Henrik 16:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to have a link on that page that'd link to another page that'd be a collection of links ? I mean it's current practice in some sections of wiki to have lists of elements such as famous norwegian writers (replace norwegian and/or writers by whatever term you like)....and it works just fine although it is still a collection of links ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurekastreet (talk • contribs) 
After the clean slate, people have now been adding "useful" links for three years, and the link directory was growing out of control again. I cleaned the slate again. Haakon (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments

message: I'm going to attempt to make some improvements to this article in the next little while, if anyone cares. For one, there are some simple references that can be added and sourced to inline citations - specifically, the article from Artforum in 2000  by Rachel Greene is an important early article that it seems some of the content is being summarized (poorly) from. Also, I was curious about the Dietz quote - and it has been widely reproduced because of this Wikipedia article. I found the original source, and it's not *quite* right on. It's here:  and he uses that quote in reference to the specific online exhibition and artists he's curated, not necessarily referring to net.art in general. Also, at the Dietz source, I found some of the other content - and again, very poorly summarized or barely-paraphrased. Heads up! Deadchildstar (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: There's a good piece about net art in the latest New Yorker (February 10, 2014 issue): "Man and Machine" by Susan Orlean.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Yorker article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internet art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707101824/http://fourninetyone.com/2011/01/06/fromclubstoaffinity/ to http://fourninetyone.com/2011/01/06/fromclubstoaffinity/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707101824/http://fourninetyone.com/2011/01/06/fromclubstoaffinity/ to http://fourninetyone.com/2011/01/06/fromclubstoaffinity/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified