Regarding "the proposal to have Wikipedia listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site", this is a terrible idea. Being designated as a historical site means that one is subject to oppressive regulation by irresponsible higher "authorities", and would probably make it virtually impossible to make necessary changes. I hope that this is just a April fools joke. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blog entry says "the point is not necessarily to be awarded this honour but to engage the world in a conversation about what “cultural heritage” means in the digital era and to contest the idea that it must be something old, that it must belong to one country, and that society cannot be actively involved in it". It's a pity that this tidbit – which really sums up what the whole thing is and isn't about – was left out in the Signpost. :P -- Schneelocke (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
