To a non-retard, it might seem an obvious point to make, that a freely licensed image placed in a prominent location on a Wikipedia article, is going to get noticed and probably used by third parties.
It is perhaps unsurprising that a Wikipediot of 18,000+ edits and 6 years of service, still doesn't know the basic purpose of Wikipedia, and the basic mechanisms by which they intend to achieve that purpose. Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is, after all, without the free labour of thousands of utter retards.
What disturbs me most, however, was how this Wikishit also seemed to have absolutely no awareness of other important factors in play here.
Wikipedia is allegedly meant to be neutral, yet he titled this piece, "Changing the world". So, it can be reasonably concluded that this guy's new found use of Wikipedia, getting imagery of protests out to news media quickly, is not for the purpose of neutral documentation of world events, but active participation in those protests.
This is bad enough, but the guy also showed absolutely no awareness of the grave responsibility this places on a budding wikishit photojournalist. The responsibility to ensure that your imagery and their descriptions are accurate and neutral.
It has been a running joke on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, that their policy "Wikipedia is not the news", is more accurately rendered as, "Wikipedia is the news, and fuck those pricks at Wikinews". Similarly, "Wikipedia is not social media", is actually, "Hashtag Wikipedia, bitches".
It is unsurprising therefore, that when describing the power of using Wikipedia to get topical imagery out there fast, to change the world, he said......
Quite.This process can be likened to retweet and share buttons on social media.
The lessons here are obvious. Despite the fact Wikipedia is clearly ripe for abuse by both protestors and state agencies looking to either promote or discredit protests, Wikipedia still doesn't, and likely never will have, any mechanism for ensuring images are what they claim to be.
I think we all know, and this isn't a recent phenomenon, faking/staging/misrepresenting imagery is one of the most effective propaganda tools there has ever been.
And needless to say, Wikipedia also don't ask potential editors, "Are you a good guy, here for the right reasons?". They just hope, and maybe, sometimes, check, but obviously only if the purpose or reasons don't obviously align with their own well known ideological biases.
After all, if you said to people, you can't edit Wikipedia if you have a purpose other than the free dissemination of neutral and accurate knowledge, well, would they have any editors at all?
The less said about the creepy valentines image, the better. I'm cruel, I'm not that cruel.