I think this is good commentary for what people will believe. This suggests that entrepreneurs can make larger leaps in "logic" (although they may not be based upon reality or fact) and make a success out of it.
I'm sure there are examples of this in real life.
Microsoft anyone? (we certainly cannot deny their revenue.)
There's a whole study behind flags and heraldry which is many centuries old. It has its strict rules. You can't just go around and "fix the layout" according to the latest esthetic trends. Look at the flags / coats of arms designed in the 60s / 70s to see what sort of disaster this leads to.
Maybe the layout of the real one has some symbolism thats specific to Herefordshire that we don't know about. Hard to say one is better without knowing the history behind the real one.
Humorless indeed. And folks wonder why the wikipedia foundation has to beg so hard for donations, well, the constant bureaucracy and rule-worship tends to disuade contributions.
I don't know what he's complaining about. The flag was uploaded as public domain. People should be able to do whatever they want with it. If he wants to make money, he should go produce and sell flags too.
Yeah I thought he's more amazed that people apparently just take stuff off of wikipedia and start manufacturing it without cross-checking with a single other source...
He is. Flags are a market with a necessarily huge selection, though - why wouldn't they snag every legally available design someone might buy? They probably manufacture the less-common selections on an as-needed basis, after all.
Several years ago I updated a particular Wikipedia puzzle writeup and included software to generate the (nontrivial) puzzle artwork. At which point I got my hands slapped (there should be a verb for that), and was told Wikipedia was not a code repository.
Evidently Wikipedia is also not a repository for original artwork.
I suppose there's some sense to that, what with the high price of storage and countless contributors wishing to upload original works.
