See the standard for medical images from the American Medical College of Genetics
http://www.acmg.net/resources/policies/pol-020.pdf I worked with people with high risk pregnancy and sometimes we took pictures of the baby if it had a genetic disorder. But we always got consent first. Sydney On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com>wrote: > I left Yann a message on his talk page asking him to reconsider. > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yann#Korean_Vulva > > I sincerely hope that she did give consent and knows that it is on Commons. > Otherwise we are exploiting her. > > I disagree that the person is not recognizable. It would be very unethical > to upload this image without this person's consent. True exploitation of the > person. > > I feel very strong about this point because of the my knowledge of past > exploitation of people in medical images in textbooks and medical journals, > some of them nude. It was absolutely wrong when it was done in the name of > education and it is wrong for us to do it now. > > Sydney Poore > User:FloNight > > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> This is a NSFW photo.... >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg >> >> Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination. >> >> An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid reason >> for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It has >> been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or >> "obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason). >> >> I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any >> project since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor >> description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an >> "educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]] >> article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow >> drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot.. >> come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality >> photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom >> for the project..if it's that in demand. >> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg> >> >> I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/ >> >> Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge >> something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong? Regardless >> of the subject, I don't understand why the admin would declare the peoples >> reasons in valid based on my knowledge of the Commons policies...: "Commons >> is not a porn site", "private location, lack of model release" etc... >> >> (And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original >> rager when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels" >> category..)...so no need to reprimand me....I've curbed my 'tude!) >> >> Any help would be great, >> >> Sarah >> >> -- >> 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 >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap