Hi all,
As you may know I have been working on GlobalUsage, a MediaWiki
extension that allows showing on which Wikimedia wikis a Commons image
is used. We had some problems before, requiring it to be disabled
before deployment complete, but now it has finally be deployed and the
data set has been built.
You can now view where an image is used on the bottom of the image
description page, or via Special:GlobalUsage. [There is still a
problem in the special page causing the "prev" link to not work, but
the fix for that will be deployed soon hopefully]
Best regards,
Bryan
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/Herefordshirehttp://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_he…
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.
