Could it be any worse? Options

[Kelly Martin]

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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Not To Be Confused With → (IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/SMocking.gif)

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Enric_Naval]

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

Fuck off and die.

[MZMcBride]

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

Fuck off and die.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Newyorkbrad]

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

Fuck off and die.

Are those the only choices?

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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

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.

[Casliber]

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.

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

"Could it be any worse?"

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

[Zoloft]

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.

I thought you were simply requesting help changing (and perhaps protecting) this sad redirect.. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[dtobias]

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

Fuck off and die.

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! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[EricBarbour]

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

Fuck off and die.

Are those the only choices?

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.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Doc glasgow]

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

Fuck off and die.

Are those the only choices?

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.

[The Adversary]

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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) )

[Milton Roe]

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

Fuck off and die.

Are those the only choices?

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.

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

[Kwork]

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

Fuck off and die.

Are those the only choices?

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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

[Somey]

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

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.

[Tarc]

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

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.