Thanks for the support SJ. Does anyone know if there is a template for this?
It's this that they claim allow images like that to stay on Commons: http://www.crucialthought.com/2009/03/03/creative-commons-licenses-cannot-be-revoked/ Someone else has jumped in and is arguing on some of this content shouldn't be here. ...fighting the good fight, Sarah On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > I would tackle this at the level of deletion templates. > > Flickrwashing is a known widespread source of copyvios. > 1. There should be a template specifically for that class of deletion. > 2. This should be added as a new reason for deletion to the > appropriate policy page. > > A Flickr-imported image whose original uploader has had their account > removed, and which has no other indication of copyright status, should > be eligible for deletion. This can be counterweighted by > * significant educational value, e.g., active use (as the best > available image) in multiple articles > * significant reason to believe the image was originally posted to > Flickr by its author [based on metadata or descriptions on the Flickr > account at the time of import, or other online sleuthing] > > If either of these is true, we can take a risk and wait for a takedown > notice. But we should be as harsh on getting copyright confirmation > for these images as we are for images obviously uploaded by their > creator or someone who knows the creator, who fail to choose the right > license template. > > SJ > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Sydney Poore <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sarah Stierch <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Just a follow up... > >> > >> It doesn't even matter, anymore. Some of these images have been > nominated > >> before, and been kept. They all just keep stating I don't know the > policies > >> and that they are in scope. Perhaps it all is and perhaps I really am an > >> idiot who just can't comprehend the policies, despite reading things > >> multiple times. > >> > >> I think the policy about Flickr accounts being deleted and it doesn't > >> matter is one of the stupidest ideas. Two of the images I nominated have > >> incorrect licenses and were still uploaded from Flickr and "okayed" by a > >> bot, despite the Flickr account stating they are all rights reserved. I > also > >> don't get how a deleted Flickr account can still be considered a > "source." > >> > >> Commons is really good at making a smart person feel stupid and like a > >> gnat. > >> > >> -Sarah > > > > > > Sarah > > > > I know that some of the images have been nominated before and kept, and > some > > of the images have to be repeatedly re-categorized, too. I get frustrated > > and at times feel that it is a time sink with no end in sight. > > > > That is the reason that I wrote to the mailing list to discuss the matter > as > > an community issue. I have come to believe that is rooted in the culture > > values of the WMF editors who add loads of these images to commons. > > > > We can't walk away from the issue because it is too important. We need to > > discuss it so that we can better understand why that we are having > trouble > > addressing the issue in a way that is promotes an inclusive editing > > environment. > > > > Sydney > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Toby Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Sarah, > >>> > >>> The principle of least surprise is roughly the following: > >>> People who go to a category/gallery/encyclopedia-article expecting > >>> something (shoes) should not be surprised by something they may find > >>> offensive (naked women wearing shoes). > >>> > >>> > >>> One way to ensure this is to make clearly labelled subcategories for > the > >>> potentially offensive material. In this case, I made a subcategory: > >>> > >>> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes > >>> and within that > >>> > >>> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes > >>> > >>> so everyone who visits that category knows exactly what they're going > to > >>> see in advance. > >>> > >>> > >>> Regarding your Flickr question: Whether the account is deleted or not > >>> doesn't usually change whether or not the picture is in scope. But > deleted > >>> accounts do make the copyright status more questionable. At the time > of > >>> upload, the bot would check that the license is correct, but that > doesn't > >>> eliminate the possibility that the Flickr user is uploading copyright > >>> violations to their Flickr account ("Flickrwashing"). If there are > other > >>> likely signs of copyright violation, I would nominate for deletion (as > I did > >>> for the other image mentioned in this thread > >>> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Young_girl_with_see-through_tops_and_shorts.jpg > ). > >>> When the account is still active, you can also check the rest of the > Flickr > >>> user's contributions to get a good sense of whether they are really the > >>> author of the photos they're uploading. > >>> > >>> Snapshots aren't necessarily out of scope just because they're > snapshots, > >>> they're sometimes realistically useful for an educational purpose. > >>> > >>> Toby > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Sarah Stierch < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Toby - > >>>> > >>>> Sorry to be a n00b but, can you explain what you mean by "refactoring > >>>> this category according to the principle of least surprise?" > >>>> > >>>> For anyone else - if you find an image that has been uploaded by a > >>>> Flickr bot, and the Flickr account has been deleted what do you do? I > notice > >>>> a large portion of images like this are often snapshot uneducational > photos > >>>> (here is an example: > >>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labace_%2824%29.jpg) I was > going to > >>>> nominate it for just being out of scope because Commons is not a > repository > >>>> for snapshots. > >>>> > >>>> ;) > >>>> > >>>> Asking questions like this on Commons-L isn't very pleasant, so thanks > >>>> for helping! > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Sarah > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Toby Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I've made a start on refactoring this category according to the > >>>>> principle of least surprise. Feel free to do this whenever you > notice a > >>>>> "surprising" image in a mundane category. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding consent, if any of the identifiable women are in private > >>>>> locations, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PEOPLE applies, and > the > >>>>> uploader should state that permission was obtained to take & publish > the > >>>>> image. If this has not been done, please either contact the uploader > or > >>>>> propose deletion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Toby Hudson / 99of9 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Sydney Poore <[email protected] > > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Category:High-heeled shoes is an excellent example of the current > >>>>>> problem WMF projects are having with creating and disseminating > content that > >>>>>> is unbiased. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This category is different that most all the other categories about > >>>>>> footwear because it contains many images that are not primarily > examples of > >>>>>> high-heeled shoes. Most other categories about footwear contain > mostly > >>>>>> images of shoes or the lower leg(s) with a shoe or shoes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The number of images in Category:High-heeled shoes is higher than > most > >>>>>> categories about footwear. Approximately one- third of the images > are of > >>>>>> full body shots of attractive females who are wearing high heeled > shoes, and > >>>>>> a significant number of them are nude or posed in sexually > provocative > >>>>>> positions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are random women who are wearing shoes and are mixed in with > the > >>>>>> porn-stars and strip-tease dancers. These women are being > objectified and > >>>>>> sexualized without their consent because of the way the the images > are > >>>>>> displayed in the category. See Wikipedia article on Sexualization > >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization for a description of the > term. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In each language that has Wikipedia articles about high-heeled > shoes, > >>>>>> the content is about a type of footwear, so the links in the > articles that > >>>>>> lead to commons are directing people to nudity or sexual content > that they > >>>>>> would not anticipate. There are other problems with some of the > images, > >>>>>> including unclear consent for the image to be uploaded by the > subject of the > >>>>>> image. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I see this category as a concrete example of systemic bias coming > from > >>>>>> having a male dominated editing community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Leather boots is only other category that I found that also has a > >>>>>> large number of images of people. It also contain a disproportionate > number > >>>>>> of images of women who are nude or in sexually provocative poses. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think that it is important to continue to talk about these issues > in > >>>>>> the hope that more people with became educated about the problems > with with > >>>>>> our current methods to collect, categorize, and disseminate content. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sydney Poore > >>>>>> User:FloNight > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Gendergap mailing list > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Gendergap mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation > >>>> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art > >>>> and > >>>> Sarah Stierch Consulting > >>>> Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising. > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> http://www.sarahstierch.com/ > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Gendergap mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gendergap mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation > >> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art > >> and > >> Sarah Stierch Consulting > >> Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising. > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> http://www.sarahstierch.com/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gendergap mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > > > -- > Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 > 4266 > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch> and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.* ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
