User:Flinders-crim-student-editor/sandbox

Evaluation of a Wikipedia Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Thomas_(activist)

Wikipedia Quality The Lead section is understandable 6/10 Very short, lead section has little introductory information about Thomas, clear and concise. The structure is clear	7/10	easily understood sections about his art and google dispute, could have an added section for personal history (more about Thomas). Good balance	7.5/10 	Balance between discussing his creation of art and the problems which he has encountered. Coverage is neutral	9/10  provides facts about the artist and issues from a neutral perspective, language used is not targeting or supporting Thomas just stating facts. Reliable sources	5/10  resources mainly come from Australian news articles, while they are relevant there may be some bias in the reports. This bias does not come across in the Wiki coverage. Aspects of the topic are missing 5/10  As this is a start article there is definitely room for more information to be added.

Minor Editing

Original: Google dispute In 2010 Thomas was involved in a dispute with Google over its intended use of a 12-year-old Australian girl's artwork incorporating the Australian Aboriginal Flag into its logo. Thomas refused to allow Google to use the image featuring the flag after negotiations over compensation failed, resulting in a modified design in which the flag was not used. Thomas claimed that Google had opened negotiations with a request for free use of the flag and, while he allowed free use to non-commercial operations that gave health, educational, legal and other assistance to Aboriginal people, he charged a fee to commercial operations. He described Google's subsequent offer as a "pittance".[6]

Thomas has since given exclusive commercial rights to three companies, "one to reproduce flags, and the others to reproduce the image on objects and clothing".[7]

Edited: Google dispute In 2010, Thomas was involved in a legal dispute with Google over its intended use of a 12-year-old Australian girl's artwork incorporating the Australian Aboriginal Flag into its logo. Thomas refused to allow Google to use the image featuring the flag after negotiations over compensation failed. This resulted in a modified design that did not include the flag. Thomas claimed that Google had opened negotiations with a request for free use of the flag and, while he allowed free use to non-commercial operations that gave health, educational, legal and other assistance to Aboriginal people, he charged a fee to commercial operations, such as merchandising. He described Google's subsequent offer as a "pittance".[6]

Thomas has since given exclusive commercial rights to three companies, "one to reproduce flags, and the other two to reproduce the image on objects and clothing".[7]

Assignment 4 Wikipedia Article

Copyright Issues over the Aboriginal Flag
The Aboriginal Flag has been viewed as a symbol for Aboriginal People of Australia for decades, becoming a unifying symbol bringing together Indigenous Australians. It was first created by Harold Thomas in 1971 and has been used since for political agendas, sporting events and personal use. There has been considerable dispute over who is legally able to use and distribute the Aboriginal Flag and the copyright laws attached to it. WAM Clothing currently has a full licensing agreement to use and distribute the flag for commercial gain. This dispute has also had influence in discussions within the sociological community regarding race and equality.

Symbolism of the Flag
Since its design in 1971, the Aboriginal flag has come to be a symbol for the Australian Indigenous population. First used for the National Aborigines March in Adelaide and the protests organised on the lawns of Parliament house known now known as the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. The flag has since become a recognisable symbol also used for sporting and political events, but also as a symbol of recognition for Australian Indigenous people across Australia.

The Dispute
The dispute over the Aboriginal flag has been ongoing since its creation. As the artist of the flag, Harold Thomas holds creative license and can sell this license to whoever he likes. Birubi Art obtained an exclusive licensing agreement alongside his company WAM Clothing. This caused dispute as Birubi had faced federal charges in breach of consumer laws for selling fake Aboriginal art.

Implications for the Aboriginal People
The dispute over the flag has led to discussions over the flag dispute and what it means in relation to race and equality. There have been calls from the public to give creative licensing for the flags use to the Aboriginal people. This would allow them to use the flag without it having an immense financial cost. This is important when looking at this issue from the perspective of the social imaginary. The imaginary explains how people see their social existence and the expectations that need to be met. No change means there will be a continuing separation and inequality present between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It continues the longstanding disregard by the Australian government towards Aboriginal sovereignty.

Government Response
The government have had little input within the debate surrounding the copyright of the Aboriginal flag. They state that it was not a matter of enough importance for the government to take legal action to gain licensing agreements for use of the flag. Without any input from the government, there is a continuation of colonial views that non-Indigenous matters are of more importance. It continues the gap between the two cultures whereby, Australians get a fully recognised and useable symbol, while Aboriginal people need to pay to use the symbol they identify with. With no one taking ownership over the changes that need to be made regarding racial inequalities, then issues such as this will continue to occur and likely worsen.