Kelso has posted a link to an interesting article.  The gist - "How Google’s open-ended maps are embroiling the company in some of the world’s touchiest geopolitical disputes."  Of course this isn't really anything new.  Maps created outside of the contested area are always controversial, e.g. National Geographic and the Persian Gulf.  What is particularly interesting in this case, is how technology is allowing the modern atlas to be in more than one place at once.  Google maintains different maps for different regions of the world, allowing a space where Iranians might see the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabians might see Arabian Gulf.  Of course, there are always going to be layers of meanings and names for places from the local/individual to what the nation has "officially" decided.  In some ways, Google is trying to cater for that as well by placing photos from panaramio on google maps so you can "explore" the area.  The other interesting bit in the article is how Google is being held responsible for Crowdsourcing of geographic/historic data (accurate or otherwise).  I think when Neogeography and Crowdsourcing are spoken of, it is generally in this solve the world gleam sort of way (sorry not very eloquent this morning), but this article shines a light on its dark side.

Plus it quotes Goodchild, so how bad can the article be.