When do commercial pressures affect ideals? Testing that proposition was an unexpected result of the "Wikipedia Art" project. Two artists, Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, created a self-referential article on Wikipedia, about the self-same article. Simultaneously, they had several blogs write about the project. They stated: "Wikipedia Art is a conceptual artwork composed on Wikipedia, and is thus art that anyone can edit. As a consequence of such collaborative and consensus-driven edits to the page, Wikipedia Art, itself, changes over time."

In reading their goals and intentions, I was struck by how some observations covered well-trodden ground among Wikipedia critics, though I wouldn't want to disparage the validity of making these points to an audience that might find the ideas novel. One message gave a litany of flaws: everything from (my paraphrases) the tension around the Wikipedia slogan – "anyone can edit" (yet a very small number of gatekeepers will determine if contributions are accepted) – to the focus on pop culture and neglect of high culture.

However, their points tended to be expressed in an obscure and frankly irritating manner, where the artists could not seem to grasp a basic, if often rudely put, objection – they were nowhere near as clever as they seemed to think they were. People familiar with some of the darker aspects of Wikipedia wouldn't find it surprising that naive believers in the PR line of love and community don't fare well when they run into a reality of a cult filled with suspicion, fanaticism, and group dysfunction.

But it all would have been another long-winded Wikipedia debate, had the matter not turned into a dispute over trademark rights v fair use of trademarks as references. Funding has always been a problem for Wikipedia. Its owner, the Wikimedia Foundation, "continues to explore strategic partnerships". One such recent arrangement with Orange (France Telecom) describes how: "This partnership will extend co-branding opportunities … This is an additional revenue stream to build on our most important revenue stream – our successful fundraising campaigns." This makes its trademarks valuable commercial property. And ­creates pressure to be aggressive regarding any possible infringement.

The artists had a website, wikipedia­art.org, also using the title "Wikipedia Art" to discuss their efforts. They received a formal law firm letter from a lawyer, stating in part, "Wikimedia has asked me to investigate whether your actions violate [many trademark laws listed]."

The letter requested they "transfer [the domain wikipediaart.org] to Wikimedia and cease using the Wikipedia trademark." This led to pro-bono legal defence from the organisation Public Citizen. "With respect, I am very disappointed to learn that an entity group that I res­pect … nevertheless sent out a demand letter predicated on a view of trademark law that we have been fighting for years, with a fair amount of success … "

And remarks from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org): "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? It appears the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."

Reacting in part to the bad publicity, Wikimedia's general counsel claimed: "No litigation was threatened or commenced." And Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales) alleged: "There was never a legal threat, no action of any kind, and there is no intention to take action of any kind. We asked them politely to put up a legal notice distinguishing themselves from Wikipedia, and they did … A group of trolls managed to manufacture for the media a publicity stunt."

Kildall commented on a mailing list: "It's weird to see how they've framed this issue as Nathaniel and myself as 'performance artists' who have somehow hoodwinked the EFF, but I assume this is a media-spinning tactic."

While the Wikimedia Foundation has backed off, the moral of the story is: money changes everything. And, as more "revenue streams" are sought, more clashes of values may occur.

sethf.com/infothought/blog