On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has > further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow > it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer, then > they will help to bring Commons practice in line with the intent of the > board resolution. That is all for the good, is it not? > No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a blunt instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken in a private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr, Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving. The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent. It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would have to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address that point. > YouTube and Flickr would strongly disagree with that assertion. (They have > staff.) > Unless I'm badly mistaken, their staff is not especially proactive, but instead respond to user flags and DMCA filings. Commons volunteers are proactive. Perhaps not up to your standard of perfection, but to a very high degree. -Pete
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
