Submit an Artifact

The contribution desk is open

Memeplex accepts artifacts through GitLab merge requests. The process is intentionally plain: fork or clone the repository, create one leaf bundle, run the checks, and ask another pair of eyes to verify the record.

The ceremony serves the evidence. It does not replace it.

Before you open the bundle

Confirm that you may publish the image and its metadata. Remove private filesystem paths, credentials, hostnames, account emails, and unrelated identities. A public source link is ideal. A restricted source may be recorded honestly, but do not turn private context into public exposition.

Prepare:

1. the final image, not a thumbnail or intermediate render;
2. the original source message or best recoverable source handle;
3. creator and depicted-subject attribution;
4. generation details you can actually support;
5. descriptive alt text;
6. parent accession IDs for any remix.

The accession sequence

Open the branch. Use feat/meme/<slug> so the work is isolated and reviewable.

Create the leaf bundle. Copy the contribution template into content/memes/<slug>/index.md and place the image beside it.

Seal the bytes. Record the exact SHA-256, byte count, dimensions, and media type. The validator recomputes them.

Declare the source. Choose the weakest provenance level that is fully true. “Unknown” is better than an invented certainty.

Describe the artifact. Fill every classification that improves retrieval. Tags are normalized; alt text describes the image rather than repeating the title.

Run the desk. make check validates metadata and media, rebuilds the deterministic index, runs source lint and tests, produces the Hugo site, scans links, and rejects public leaks.

Open the merge request. Explain the premise, source, generation path, lineage, rights posture, and anything a reviewer should distrust first.

Reviewer’s oath

Before recommending accession, I affirm that:

• I inspected the final image rather than trusting its filename.
• I verified the checksum, dimensions, byte count, and bundle path.
• I followed the source handle as far as its visibility permits.
• I did not upgrade provenance confidence to make the record look cleaner.
• I checked creator identity and depicted-subject attribution separately.
• I checked lineage against existing accession IDs.
• I read the alt text without looking at the image and found it useful.
• I looked for credentials, private paths, private contact details, and unrelated identities.
• I ran every local check and reviewed every CI job on the exact head.
• I understand that taste can be debated after integrity passes.

If any statement is false, the artifact remains at the contribution desk.

What the validator refuses

Bad hashes. Wrong dimensions. Duplicate IDs. Missing files. Broken ancestry. Malformed tags. Secrets. Absolute local paths. Metadata that cannot satisfy the schema.

The validator cannot determine whether a joke is good, whether a source description is socially appropriate, or whether publication is wise. That work belongs to reviewers.

The validator is not hostile. The validator is correct.