4 Jan 2010 12:05
Flag of Neologism
Some time ago a person just made up a flag for Herefordshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herefordshire) and uploaded it. The flag is erroneously represented as the official flag on both the NL and PL wikipedias: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herefordshire http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herefordshire Since no official flag exists (as far as I can tell) this flag shows up right at the top of a google search result: http://www.google.com/search?q=herefordshire+flag Several low-rent vendors have picked up the flag and started selling it, apparently under the belief that it was the official deal. The original author of the flag posted on the internet bragging about it: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/52097-fucking-nice/ The file was placed for deletion on commons, but people are voting to keep it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_herefordshire.PNG I've long been an advocate of commons having a wider mandate than the Wikipedias, such as accepting original works where the Wikipedias wouldn't. However, I think that keeping this is an abuse of the expanded mandate and that accepting this kind of misleading work puts commons policy in conflict with the needs of its primary customer. I'm of the view that commons should never be used in a manner which is dishonest or misleading, and that the expanded mandate compared to the Wikipedias should be primarily about the noteworthness of the covered subject matter, not its truthfulness.(Continue reading)
Could you put the stats of some projects (say, Bundesarchiv, Fotothek,
Tropenmuseum and later maybe more) in a (_p) database on a weekly
basis so we can graph it and maybe do other nice things with it?
Maarten
RSS Feed