User:Donald Trung/When are fantasy nations and fringe political statements acceptable?

This page 📃 is an essay on the usage of fake maps, fake flags, fantasy 😈 political flags, and “the like” being hosted on Wikimedia Commons and tries to give an overview of both the (current) situation and tries to separate the different political motivations for creating and/or uploading these flags.

General overview

On Wikimedia Commons there are swaths of political activist images and/or other content, in order to give a neutral coverage of a political situation a Wikipedia would require all sides of a political situation to be represented on Wikimedia Commons in order to properly (and neutrally) illustrate “all sides of the spectrum” so to say, however Wikimedia Commons doesn't actually have either a neutral point of view or even a notability standard, in fact merely existing allows for a political movement to be documented here, this doesn't mean that every offshoot of a political movement IS represented, this just means that they CAN be represented here, regional politics can often be ignored and their coverage would very unlikely attract “(inter)national eyes 👀”, but the coverage of local politics is of priceless value to future 🔮 historians, in fact everything is. Political parties come in all shapes and sizes, you can’t think of an idea 💡 no matter how odd or weird and there is a political party or a minor political activist group that has built their whole platform on that, now the ways political memes (or ideas) work is largely based on how important something is for an individual. So when do we start separating unique political ideas that are so “unique” that they basically only apply to one (1) person from unpopular fringe politics? Because this is where the scope of Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia websites as a whole come into play 🎭, because documenting existing outside politics is an educational endeavour while promoting “original political ideas” unconcerned with the Wikimedia websites themselves but only hosted here to be promoted isn’t strictly educational but advertising. It attempts to legitimise political ideas and gain a following through misusing user 👤 pages, fringe political ideas get documented but they have to be born on the outside first 🥇.

Now the way the real world 🗺 works and gets influenced by the internet has changed a lot in the past two ✌🏻 (2) decades and during the time ⌚ Wikimedia websites have been around the internet itself has gone to affect people’s daily lives more and more to the point that for many people (a majority in fact) the internet has become their daily lives, previously internet-only source were thrown out of hand ✋🏻 as “non-notable sources” but as times as changing very few stories evade the all-seeing eye 👁 of the internet, and while political ideas needed a somewhat rather large 🤪 following to be noted before their mere existence warrants far and wide coverage today. The internet is becoming “the collective Brain 🧠 of humanity” and almost every idea 💡 gets uploaded to the internet, so the question ❓ becomes, what ideas should be allowed representation on Wikimedia Commons and which ideas should stay only in forums?

Now these ideas should be based on their external notability and neither their merit nor their “internal popularity” (let’s say a lot of Wikimedians support an idea 💡 but they aren’t aware of each other supporting this idea and there is one admin or new-page patroller who keeps speedy deleting anything related to that idea then it would be impossible to organise, but those with an interest in censorship need no such orgsnisation). Logo’s of political organisations (that do not meet “Commons:Threshold of originality”) should then always be acceptable, but as always it's not as “black and white” as that.

Fictional flags of fictional countries Vs. Fictional and/or proposed flags of political movements

A “proposed” flag of “Hong Kong, Taiwan”, this flag has been proposed by no-one and while there is a pro-Taiwan Camp in HK politics it's extremely small.

Now we have to clearly differentiate between 2 (two) groups here, aficionado’s of fantasy works (either big or small) and supporters of “fringe” political movements, but let’s take an example of something that is a movement but doesn't have any symbols and all of its political organisations are very much “minor”, the “w:en: Pro-Taiwan camp (Hong Kong)”. Now there are a small number of Pro-Taiwan political organisations in Hong Kong that believe that Hong Kong is a part of Taiwan (Cantonese: Toiwan) or want(ed) Hong Kong to join Taiwan but since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s these political organisations have become both smaller in number and in membership, someone can be of the belief that Hong Kong should join the Republic of China (although realistically this would provoke war between China and Democratic China). Now is there much of an online presence for people who believe this? No. So what would constitute giving this minor stance in Hong Kong politics a disproportionate representation on Wikimedia Commons? Well, a “proposed” flag of “Hong Kong, Taiwan”, this flag has been proposed by no-one and while there is a pro-Taiwan Camp in HK politics it's extremely small, so this flag is an example of an idea 💡 not native to that political scene itself. Now is this flag harmless? As the files 📁 “File:Flag of Hong Kong.svg” and “File:Flag of the Republic of China.svg” are already hosted on Wikimedia Commons (with inspiration taken from File:Flag of Hong Kong (1959–1997).svg). I would say so as the movement is incredibly small and will never (🔮) grow again so there’s literally a 0% (zero percent) chance to ever see this flag 🏴 at pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong, so this flag is an original idea 💡 to illustrate a political stance, right? Kind of, but there is a reason why there hasn't been a unifying symbol in the first place and that is because this is a fringe political movement. Now I do plan on using this flag 🏴 in a usernox in “my” Wikimedia Commons user page to express this opinion, but that doesn't mean that this flag represents anything other than the opinion of someone who contributes to Wikimedia Commons, it is neither an official logo nor officially associated with any Hong Kong-based Pro-Taiwan camp and that is the gist of it.

Now imagine this with a more provocative political stance, would it still just be “an innocent user page image”?

Userboxes 👤, and the politicisation of Wikimedia user pages

This user believes that Hong Kong should be a part of the Republic of China (ROC).

This user supports the Pro-Taiwan camp.

User pages on a Wikimedia website are like any other page 📃 on these websites, they can be edited by anyone and have to be within the scope of the project, now we all know that local sysops and not really any (vaguely worded) guidelines and policies govern what happens to user pages, this is why despite there literally being no guideline or policy on blanking/deleting the user pages of blocked/banned users this happens anyhow as an unwritten rule (when I described this to my best-friend he called Wikimedians “a petty community”) and in case of some admins they even delete user pages before adding a block notice as in not even the history of that page deserves to be public, but then again “blocks aren’t punishment” and “indefinite blocks are not meant to be forever, just until the human being behind the account has addressed the issue and given a credible statement on how they will conduct themselves according to community standards” (which of course has to be marked by the immediate blanking of their user page 📃), but why am I writing ✍🏻 all of this here? Very simple, none of the above behaviours on blanking user pages (or in case of users like INeverCry/Daphne Lantier deleting user pages) were ever voted on by the community or decided by a large group of people other than those who concern themselves with the blocked/banned, this shows a rather obvious bias against these people not based on anything other than spiteful emotion or a clear disregard for the people at hand. If anyone would do this to a non-blocked/non-banned user 👤 it would rightfully be seen as vandalism, but somewhere down the line someone decided that “blocked users don't deserve a user page” and this became an unwritten and unspoken rule. Politics on user pages or just general information ℹ on user pages enjoy a somewhat similar vague “set of (unwritten) rules”, what’s “personal” on a new user’s profile 👤 page is “acceptable” on that of “a trusted user’s”. One’s definition of “spam” isn't the others, and what “is” and “isn't acceptable” is dependent on the person patrolling the page.

Generally speaking more leeway is given to users who are considered “established” users 👥, this isn't based on the age of the account or the person/human-being behind the account (new accounts keep all the sanctions and warnings but lose whatever rights or “trust” is accumulated, it is always “a lose-lose situation”), the idea 💡 of “an established user 👤” is based on how long they’ve been around on this particular project + how many GOOD edits they’ve made + if they have ever aroused the ire of anyone with power (this being a negative if done) + “do they have a history of pushing a certain point?”. It is no secret 🔐 that some users use their user pages as a curriculum vitæ while others just create a blank page in order to not have their usernames appear as red links (red links often give the impression that a user is “new”). If a user 👤 only has 2 (two, ✌🏻) edits, one uploading a political flag and two making a user page with only that flag and/or information ℹ about that political movement then this is a clear activist, now are these accounts harmful? No, not really, in fact I’d say that they subconsciously help document the zeitgeist for future 🔮 historians, but let’s be honest most Wikimedians aren't that far-sighted or care for that matter so whether or not these edits get removed have more to do with who is patrolling them than anything else. If only there were more Inclusionists…

But let’s go back to the beginning, Jimbo Wales notably stated that he wanted to keep politics off of personal spaces on Wikimedia websites and that political affiliations will hinder collaboration, well I'd like to think that Old Jimboboy was wrong 👎🏻 and that userboxes have not influenced collaboration, I would personally happily collaborate with far-right German and Austrian supremacist ultranationalists if they with to document the monetary history of Nazi-Germany and with far-left Soviet revivalists if they would want to document the monetary history of the Soviet Union, our shared interest is numismatics and in our goal to document history we work together, I can respect that more than a Deletionist trying to all uploads by a Neo-Nazi because of their wrongthink, and my wife is Jewish 🕍 and her grandparents spent time in a concentration camp and we mixed-race children 🚸 together, politics just take a backseat to content here. Of course this does mean that the content created is phrased as neutral as possible, there is a difference between writing ✍🏻 about what you love 💘 and promoting it.

Micronations

Micronations are a true fringe of politics, they are theoretical sovereign countries that can be proclaimed by pretty much anyone and as most governments don't take them serious no military 🎖 and/or police 👮‍♀️ actions are ever undertaken against them as long as they adhere to the laws of the land (kind of ironic as that’s what “sovereignty” entails, but that’s how micropolitics works), I can imagine micronations being born out of a protest against a law like there being “if a people of a certain area vote for independence then we shall respect their opinion” but in reality the reason why micronations exist vary, but basically all exist because of some vague legal loopholes that can be exploited. Because it’s so easy to create a micronation it is therefor not uncommon for them to be proclaimed and the micronations covered on a Wikipedia must therefor have had a considerable amount of external coverage before they warrant inclusion, but Wikimedia Commons actually has a chance “to be first 🥇” in this respect, especially if the sovereign of a micronation wishes to donate their media to Wikimedia Commons, however this can inadvertently arouse both their conflict of interest and giving undue coverage of a less notable micronation, Guido den Broeder’s Paraduin is a good example of a micronation where the sovereign is also a contributor to Wikimedia Commons. As an inclusionist I welcome him and those like him, but to play devil's advocate here…

Hail Satan ma gents, it gives unearned prominence to have disproportionate coverage of a micronation simply because of its sovereign or one of its inhabitants also being Wikimedians, Wikimedia websites should be a reflection of humanity as a whole, not just their “communities”, this gives undue weight. Of course as Wikimedia websites are only a hobby it is natural that the interests of its creators are more represented than the interests of those that do not contribute, but the level of this representation should at all times be dependent on eternal factors and not internal ones.

But then again, I’m an Inclusionist and always welcome more content over less, an undue amount of (neutral) coverage of one subject doesn't come at the cost of another subject, knowledge isn't a zero-sum game, otherwise humanity would've never left the caves. 🧔🏻

Original publication 📤

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)