Hi Ryan, A draft template was actually made to augment the mostly recently voted [[COM:SEX]] proposal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
The proposal closed with no consensus*, but with a few modifications, the template could still be put to good use. Toby / 99of9 *Mainly because it included a clause allowing admins to delete out of scope sexual content directly in a speedy deletion rather than setting up a deletion request. There actually wasn't too much opposition to requiring a statement of consent for identifiable sexual images, although there was some. On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm both a long-time admin on Commons and an OTRS volunteer. I've been > wanting to chime in on this thread, but haven't really had the time. I'm > worried though that I'm about to see history repeat itself, so I want to > quickly share a few thoughts... > > First, the issue of consent on Commons has been passionately debates for > years, and has a long and tortured history. Before proposing anything, > please make yourself familiar with the previous discussions and their > outcomes. Most notably the discussions surrounding these pages: > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity > > The point I can't emphasize enough is that if you put forward any > proposal on Commons that implies there is anything possibly problematic > about sexual or nude images in any way, you will be completely shut > down. The only way you have any chance to shape the policies and > guidelines on Commons is if you approach the problem from a > sex/nudity-agnostic point of view. Here's a good example of what NOT to do: > > I think a general statement that permission of the subject is desirable > / necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing - > thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) > I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 8 > January 2009 (UTC) > > If the horse was beyond dead in January 2009, imagine where it is now. > That said, there is still lots of room for improvement. In particular... > > Commons already requires consent for photos of identifiable people in > private spaces. In addition, many countries require consent even for > public spaces. (Take a look at > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons#Country_specific_consent_requirements > .) > The way this requirement works, however, is completely passive and > reactive - there is no impetus to proactively assert consent, only to > assert it when an image is challenged. This is a very inefficient > system. There are no templates or categories or anything to deal with > consent on Commons (apart from Template:Consent which is tied up with > the tortured history of Commons:Sexual_content and can't be used > currently). > > I don't think it would be incredibly controversial to introduce a very > simple consent template that was specifically tailored to the existing > policies and laws. This would make things easier for Commons reusers, > professional photographers who use model releases, and admins who have > to constantly deal with these issues. In short, it would be a win for > everyone and it would introduce the idea of thinking proactively about > consent on Commons in a way that isn't threatening to people who are > concerned about censorship. > > As soon as I have some free time, I'll whip up such a template and throw > it into the water. It'll be interesting to see how it is received. > > Ryan Kaldari > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
