Ran across this image recently. This fine work was executed to illustrate the article on smocking. The problem with this is that the work presented of absolutely horrific quality; if this were my work I would be tempted to burn it and under no circumstance would I let anyone see it. I'm sure that a five year old could do better than this.

Of course, one look at who created this travesty of textile arts and you'll understand why this is on Wikipedia.

Not To Be Confused With →

Jon

So make a better smocking sampler, photograph it, and impress us with your workmanship.

Fuck off and die.

Are those the only choices?

Maybe I should make manifest the subtext. You have entered a place where your values will not find universal acceptance.

Pay me for it, and I will.

Wikipedia: where we'll publish any old crap you give us, because we're too cheap to care about values.

I think what happens is no-one thinks to take photos of certain things - this often happens with common plants and birds, and things like pieces of fruit, recipes etc. Once a few folks get involved, better images come along. I recall the article on tooth/teeth going this way, and certainly some bird species articles too.

"Could it be any worse?"

Why yes, it could be and is; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Penis

I thought you were simply requesting help changing (and perhaps protecting) this sad redirect..

Now, if only you can convince the New Hampshire state government to put that on their license plates instead of the tired old "Live free or die" slogan!

Personally I was in favor of forcing Brad and Durova to strip naked,
then super-gluing their bellies together, so they are permanently stuck
face to face. Damn, that would make an awesome photo on Commons.

Not really, I'm sure it would languish in an existing category over-full of such things.

Sigh. I'm in two minds about this: on one hand I greatly appreciate what Durova has done for textile arts/ embroidery project (ok: so shoot me) -On the other hand: I would never have dared to show/produce anything like this even in my compulsary handicraft-classes when I was 10-12 years old (And yeah: I had to suffer through those. And hated it. If anyone tells me: "so produce something better yourself"..I'll throw my computer at them. )

And then to publish this on the internet, to let everyone see? Sorry, Durova: this is truly bad.

Some self-censorship might come in handy, even for "experiences" wiki-editors.

(but of course, the "wiki-way" say that even something horribly bad is better than nothing )

A couple named Mary and Kelly
Spent their honeymoon belly to belly
Because, in their haste,
They'd used library paste
Instead of petroleum jelly

I suppose another option would be to upload this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37869936@N00/493663266
or something better yet to Commons. Then you could get rid of the embarrassing quality crap in the article.

That one is also quite horrible, though in a different way.

I hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but if the point is to show how the fabric is gathered, does the quality of the stitching itself really matter? One might even argue that high-quality stitching might distract the reader/viewer from the fabric-gathering effect. Besides, the world has spandex and lycra now - does anybody even need this technique, other than to make period costumes for Renaissance Festivals?

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the Smocking (T-H-L-K-D) article is about equal in length to the Textile industry (T-H-L-K-D) article, and actually has better sourcing - though admittedly the latter has an offshoot, Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution (T-H-L-K-D) that's also about the same length.

I'd rather see an article with no images than one with poor-quality freebies. This is like the case with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rama (T-H-L-K-D), and admin who goes on crusades against fair-use photographs, subbing them for his own MS Paint-quality reproductions.

I have around here somewhere a most excellent book on manipulating fabric that documents a whole host of methods for shaping fabric using many techniques, including smocking. That book features technically excellent photographs of masterfully executed articles each of which was specifically intended to document the particular method being discussed. Trust me, it is much easier to understand the technique when you are provided with technically superior examples photographed in a technically competent way.

Of course, the photographs in that book were taken by a professional and the articles being photographed were produced by a master of the craft. Neither statement can be said, without laughter, regarding Durova.

I am not an expert on embroidery, so I could be wrong, but if the intent is to show what a good quality example looks like, I think that image would probably do. There is no need to think in terms of how much you personally would want to wear it.

Well then, I guess we're back to the same question we've always had about Durova, i.e., does she even realize what she's doing? I'd like to think have a healthy respect for women with big egos, even if they occasionally do things that suggest outright delusional thinking. But maybe I'm some sort of "reverse-sexist" for thinking along those lines.

Anyway, we should be glad it's just the article on Smocking, rather than Snogging (T-H-L-K-D) - the photo that accompanies the Snogging article isn't really all that bad, though I suppose it too would be better if it were done by professionals.

NEEDS MOAR TONGUE

People generally think they are doing the right thing, even if they are mistaken. The problem gets bigger when administrators, who are cops, start to enjoy using their authority while knowing they can usually get away with misuse. (I understand Durova is a retired wiki-cop, but she has kept plenty of clout.) There is no one to protect WP users from their protectors. It could be worse, but in kind it is the same as the violant misuses of (for example) NYPD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ...player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5I_lwQyxNI

Well, let's be somewhat fair about this - I don't think this is abuse that regular users need protection from. At worst, it's just some combination of egotism and self-promotion masquerading as a desire to provide helpful illustrations, which just happen to be not that good.

I say "self-promotion" despite the fact (or perhaps because of the fact) that I don't really know what Durova does for a living. Some of you may recall this topic, in which I myself pointed out how Wikipedia sound recordings could be used as a professional calling-card, in that case by Makemi (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Mindspillage (T-C-L-K-R-D) :
Obviously it would be extremely hypocritical for Durova to do something like that, not to mention risky given the quality of the stitching in question. But I guess that sort of goes without saying at this point.

"Independent Writing and Editing Professional", apparently. I don't know if that's a fancy way of saying "freelance subeditor".

An illustration in this article can serve two purposes; to show how great the finished work can be (like the Holbein-painting) ..or a "how to" picture. And seriously: would you try to do any of the smocking techniques from Durovas picture? I certainly would not. (As for showing great finished work, there are many pictures on commons; what is needed is a "how to".)

And l agree with Kelly: I have collected several books on a special ethnic type of embroidery these last few years, and, even with my limited interest: I could do that embroidery (if I wanted to!) based on the pictures in those books.

Again; I feel, in one way very badly criticizing Durova on this, as she is one of the few who has done long-term work in the textile/embroidery area. Beggars cannot be choosers, and all that.

The problem is: when someone put up "any" bad work; won't that put off improvement in the future? I think it will. And I think Durova needs some hints, hints, nudge, nudge, that she should concentrate her activities on something else than doing smocking samplers in the future.

I've seen this before: when people work in "low-intensity" areas in wp, it can be easy to get a rather false picture of the value of your own work. People simply don't get enough feedback.


To certain editors on wp: Dont.Even.Think.About.It.

Er - no. It has elastane. This is also known as spandex especially in the USA but according to the BBC spandex is actually a brand name. Lycra is the brand name for spandex used by Du Pont.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A676262

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Spandex.html

Can't some of this smocking be done so that "M Y W I K I B I Z" appears in the stitching?

I don't feel badly about criticizing Durova. She (usually) deserves it.

Wikipedia: The Beggar's Encyclopedia!

Heh; do like me: I order all my embroidery on ebay these days.

So much easier than relying on Durovas pictures!

Gawd Wins Again …

Jon

Teehee

You could pay someone to make it and upload it to wikipedia. Oh wait....

What a stupid article. It doesnt mention elastane.

Yes, that's the main problem with it.

See Elastane To Clarksville

Jon

Very nice. Spandau Ballet can be applied to somebody assisting Rudolf Hess to a temps levé sauté that lasted many minutes. That's major hang time.

Why don't you just bop on over there and fix it? You do have an account still ... right?

Alas, no. If only it was on Wikiquote....

The revision history of Spandex fetishism on wipipedia featuring Ropeuser and Vicky.

Eric starts the Whale tail WR thread on Feb 12.

Ropeuser starts the wipipedia Whale tail article on Feb 13.

That name 'Vicky' sounds awfully familiar. Where could I have heard of it before .....

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/inde...&year=&month=-1
10:42, 18 September 2008 Balzac (Talk | contribs) has renamed User:Taxwoman to "Vicky" ‎ (1,661 edits. Reason: request of user)

Wow, it's amazing that this thread went on for several days and started over a brief mention at my user page.

The reason for avoiding Flickr for this topic is quite simple: original creative designs in the craft arts are copyrightable. Many people don't know that; also many people don't understand what a derivative work is.

The safest way to avoid copyright infringements in crafted items is to upload one's own original designs.

You're basically just laughing at the rest of us at this point, aren't you?

Personally, I think it's a lovely design. In fact, I'm thinking of having my entire house redone around that basic motif, and possibly the landscaping too...! It would be a lot more practical than my current place, I'll tell ya that.

It won't have evolved completely in the Free Kulture cycle until the stitches are arranged into a penis pattern.