subject:"\"\\\[Gendergap\\\] Topless image retention \\\-don't give up\""

Right Pete,

It is an important distinction to make, thanks for that. For example

A person in the UK is having a meal in a restaurant. It's not exactly
a private setting is it? Do they have an expectation of privacy?

Read 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#United_Kingdom
for the answer to that.

For those who are too lazy to click:

"Another recent court case "upheld a right to eat a meal in a
restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented
to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's
normal expectation not to be photographed there."

These are all the types of distinctions that we on Commons make every
day; day in day out.

Regards,

Russavia

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>>
>> It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting
>
>
>>> OR <<
>
>>
>> with an expectation of privacy.
>
>
> The "OR" inserted above is important to the paraphrase -- it's one of the
> things that often gets missed in this discussion.
>
> -Pete
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Also, I will say this out in the open.

What I wrote just previous to this is EXACTLY why we on Commons have
allowed ourselves to be guided by common sense and our community
drafted policies, rather the potentially destructive Board resolution.

I will also make it known that I sent emails to Sue Gardiner, Jimmy
Wales and Philippe Beaudette on two occasions last year in relation to
this VERY issue, and did not receive a response back from a single one
of them.

So, please, before we start attacking Commons, please remember that 3
people within the WMF were made aware of this issue on two separate
occasions last year, and did nothing about it. (as far as I can tell).

Regards,

Russavia

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Russavia  wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This
>> rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their
>> reasonable expectation of privacy.
>>
>> The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and nobody seems to care. I find that
>> appallingly callous.
>
> So what you are saying is that are able to assume consent in instances
> such as images from the White House stream for the following:
>
> 1) That the person consents to being published
> 2) That the person consents to having their likeness uploaded to Commons
> 3) That the person consents to having their likeness made available
> under a free licence
> 4) That the person consents to having their likeness used commercially
> 5) That the person understands what making their likeness under a free
> licence entails
>
> etc,etc, etc
>
> These are all arguments that we hear on a daily basis, and I am sorry
> to say that the WMF board resolution makes NO differentiation between
> images, or even their source. It merely states (paraphrasing) images
> of people in a private setting with an expectation of privacy.
>
> Let's use this example, which the WMF themselves used in their annual
> report (6 months after they passed their resolution)
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khairat_OLPC_teacher_-_retouch_for_WMF_annual_report_2010-11_(RGB).jpg
>
> 1) It's from Flickr
> 2) It's of school children in a school in India
> 3) At least six of the children are clearly identifiable
> 4) Being in a private setting (a school) there is an expectation of privacy
>
> The board resolution DICTATES that this photo MUST have consent, and
> people such as yourself insist on all these extra hoops as per other
> "private setting" "expectation of privacy" images.
>
> Am I going to delete it, as the board resolution dictates? Should I delete it?
>
> Or how about: 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-08-16_Dmitry_Medvedev_and_Bono_6.jpg
>
> 1) It's from the Kremlin website
> 2) We have permission for all Kremlin materials under a free CC-BY licence
> 3) We can safely assume that all likenesses of Dmitry
> Medvedev/Vladimir Putin we have permission for
>
> But
>
> 1) This is taken at a presidential dacha in Sochi
> 2) Being in a private setting, there is an expectation of privacy
> 3) Whilst it is likely that Bono agreed to have image published on
> Kremlin website, there is no evidence
> a) He agreed to have his likeness uploaded to Commons
> b) He agreed to have his likeness made available under a free licence
> c) He agreed to have this likeness made available for commercial usage
>
> If Bono should contact us and tell us to remove it, should we? After
> all, all he has to do is to quote that WMF Board resolution.
>
> Should we delete that image if he contacts us? Should we delete it now?
>
> And this is by using the same arguments that I have heard for other
> images using the same board resolution which makes no distinction
> between images other than "private setting" with "expectation of
> privacy".
>
> How's that for a pandora's box?
>
> Regards,
>
> Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Russavia wrote:

> It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting
>

>> OR <<

> with an expectation of privacy.
>

The "OR" inserted above is important to the paraphrase -- it's one of the
things that often gets missed in this discussion.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This
> rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their
> reasonable expectation of privacy.
>
> The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and nobody seems to care. I find that
> appallingly callous.

So what you are saying is that are able to assume consent in instances
such as images from the White House stream for the following:

1) That the person consents to being published
2) That the person consents to having their likeness uploaded to Commons
3) That the person consents to having their likeness made available
under a free licence
4) That the person consents to having their likeness used commercially
5) That the person understands what making their likeness under a free
licence entails

etc,etc, etc

These are all arguments that we hear on a daily basis, and I am sorry
to say that the WMF board resolution makes NO differentiation between
images, or even their source. It merely states (paraphrasing) images
of people in a private setting with an expectation of privacy.

Let's use this example, which the WMF themselves used in their annual
report (6 months after they passed their resolution)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khairat_OLPC_teacher_-_retouch_for_WMF_annual_report_2010-11_(RGB).jpg

1) It's from Flickr
2) It's of school children in a school in India
3) At least six of the children are clearly identifiable
4) Being in a private setting (a school) there is an expectation of privacy

The board resolution DICTATES that this photo MUST have consent, and
people such as yourself insist on all these extra hoops as per other
"private setting" "expectation of privacy" images.

Am I going to delete it, as the board resolution dictates? Should I delete it?

Or how about: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-08-16_Dmitry_Medvedev_and_Bono_6.jpg

1) It's from the Kremlin website
2) We have permission for all Kremlin materials under a free CC-BY licence
3) We can safely assume that all likenesses of Dmitry
Medvedev/Vladimir Putin we have permission for

But

1) This is taken at a presidential dacha in Sochi
2) Being in a private setting, there is an expectation of privacy
3) Whilst it is likely that Bono agreed to have image published on
Kremlin website, there is no evidence
a) He agreed to have his likeness uploaded to Commons
b) He agreed to have his likeness made available under a free licence
c) He agreed to have this likeness made available for commercial usage

If Bono should contact us and tell us to remove it, should we? After
all, all he has to do is to quote that WMF Board resolution.

Should we delete that image if he contacts us? Should we delete it now?

And this is by using the same arguments that I have heard for other
images using the same board resolution which makes no distinction
between images other than "private setting" with "expectation of
privacy".

How's that for a pandora's box?

Regards,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-13 Thread Ryan Kaldari


On 5/13/13 5:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:



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


That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which
states the following:
" This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres
to professional editorial standards, allowing the status of
consent to be reasonably inferred."
Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several
such options available with the consent template.


This certainly seems like an improvement to me (in terms of due 
diligence and providing the reader with useful information) -- but how 
does it address the image's compatibility with the board resolution? 
It remains true that all 5 people were in a private setting, and did 
not (to our knowledge) express their consent to be published on 
Wikimedia Commons. (Or perhaps mere "consent to be published" is what 
the board meant - ?)


That's a good point. I wonder if it would be useful to circle back 
around with the Board and see if they would be interested in a more 
realistic "baby-steps" approach to the issue of consent.


Ryan Kaldari
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

>  On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
> like.
>
> Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
>

That looks better than I had remembered -- thanks, and sorry for not
mentioning it.

>  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
>
>
> That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which states the
> following:
> " This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to
> professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be
> reasonably inferred."
> Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several such
> options available with the consent template.
>

This certainly seems like an improvement to me (in terms of due diligence
and providing the reader with useful information) -- but how does it
address the image's compatibility with the board resolution? It remains
true that all 5 people were in a private setting, and did not (to our
knowledge) express their consent to be published on Wikimedia Commons. (Or
perhaps mere "consent to be published" is what the board meant - ?)

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-13 Thread Ryan Kaldari


On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look 
like.

Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent


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


That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which states the 
following:
" This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to 
professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be 
reasonably inferred."
Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several such 
options available with the consent template.


Ryan Kaldari
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> 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.
>>
>
>
> Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This
> rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their
> reasonable expectation of privacy.
>

The board resolution requires that a photo taken in a private place carry
affirmation of consent. Please note the word OR -- not the word AND. It
doesn't matter if the people in the photo waived an expectation of privacy,
if they are in a private place. Affirmation of consent (to something poorly
defined) is still required.

Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-13 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe 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.
>

It does not require deletion at all. It requires an affirmation of consent.

Commons, on the other hand, right now does not even delete if that
affirmation is explicitly denied.

> 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.
>

Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This
rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their
reasonable expectation of privacy.

The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and nobody seems to care. I find that
appallingly callous.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe  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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-13 Thread Katherine Casey

Russavia and Andreas, I want to take this opportunity to point out that the
style of argument the two of you have been engaged in since last night is
exactly what some of us mean when we refer to an "aggressive" atmosphere
that makes us uncomfortable on the projects. Turning a disagreement over
how to apply policy into "you are" this, and "two years ago you said" that,
and "your friend's boss once did" this other thing, all in an attempt to
discredit the other person, is not a constructive way to make one's own
point. It doesn't actually strengthen either side's argument; it only
escalates the entire dispute.

It is entirely possible to disagree - vehemently - without the ad hominems,
the "dirt digging" background research, and general aggressive posturing
we're seeing here. In an atmosphere where one doesn't feel one can disagree
with someone without being subjected to those things, the idea of speaking
up, or even of participating silently, becomes increasingly unattractive.

-Fluff

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Russavia wrote:

> Hello again Andreas
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including
> > images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names,
> > according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm
> > told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly
> > faster than the Wikimedia response.
>
> You are wrong yet again. I am speaking from experience here, and
> "inappropriate" images have been removed within minutes of them being
> brought to our attention. Odder, a Commons oversighter also verifies
> this at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_problematic_files_to_be_brought_to_our_attention
> where he states:
>
> "as all reports of potentially illegal content are responded to within
> a few hours (sometimes even minutes), which is much better than the 12
> hours than Flickr takes pride in."
>
> 12 hours being the length of time it was quoted by one of your cohorts.
>
> Also, Andreas, for someone who is so interested in Commons and having
> images removed and having a streamlined reporting process, it is most
> curious as to why you haven't commented in that thread above, and
> added your support to it.
>
> Or is it easier to ignore the fact that we on Commons are being
> pro-active in issues such as this and keep peddling "OMG COMMONS IS
> BROKEN" in venues such as this.
>
> Any other reports you have to make are also best done on Commons, so
> that our admins can deal with them within our processes. I believe
> this has been told to you on numerous occasions now, amirite?
>
> Your contribs (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayen466)
> and deleted contribs
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Jayen466)
> clearly demonstrate that it is more important for you to troll off the
> project, than it is do anything remotely useful on the project.
>
> Regards,
>
> Russavia
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Hello again Andreas

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including
> images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names,
> according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm
> told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly
> faster than the Wikimedia response.

You are wrong yet again. I am speaking from experience here, and
"inappropriate" images have been removed within minutes of them being
brought to our attention. Odder, a Commons oversighter also verifies
this at 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_problematic_files_to_be_brought_to_our_attention
where he states:

"as all reports of potentially illegal content are responded to within
a few hours (sometimes even minutes), which is much better than the 12
hours than Flickr takes pride in."

12 hours being the length of time it was quoted by one of your cohorts.

Also, Andreas, for someone who is so interested in Commons and having
images removed and having a streamlined reporting process, it is most
curious as to why you haven't commented in that thread above, and
added your support to it.

Or is it easier to ignore the fact that we on Commons are being
pro-active in issues such as this and keep peddling "OMG COMMONS IS
BROKEN" in venues such as this.

Any other reports you have to make are also best done on Commons, so
that our admins can deal with them within our processes. I believe
this has been told to you on numerous occasions now, amirite?

Your contribs (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayen466)
and deleted contribs
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Jayen466)
clearly demonstrate that it is more important for you to troll off the
project, than it is do anything remotely useful on the project.

Regards,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>

> As I have said before, I am happy to work with you or anyone on drafting a
>> better policy. (I realize you offered a two word edit, but in my view this
>> is not a substantive effort to engage with the problem, so it doesn't merit
>> much pursuit. Still, I appreciate your making that effort.)
>
>

The three-word edit changing "subject consent for the use of such media" to
"subject consent for the use of such media *in Wikimedia Commons*" is
significant.

Let me explain why.

There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether *assumed
* consent to an upload to Flickr's adult section implies consent to an
upload to Wikimedia Commons or not.

Present practice in Commons is that if an adult image is present on Flickr
under a free licence, then it is fine to upload it to Commons, without
making any effort to ascertain whether the model and the Flickr uploader
are happy for the image to be on Wikimedia Commons. Neither the model nor
the Flickr uploader are notified of the Commons upload.

A number of people have been saying that before an adult image is uploaded
to Commons, models should be asked whether they agree specifically to an
upload to Commons, as the presence of their adult image on Commons has very
different implications than the presence of such an image in Flickr's
restricted section.

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?

I am sure further improvements to the wording of the board resolution can
be made. But if this change alone makes that part of the intent clearer,
then why wait?

Of course, if we want the scraping of adult images from Flickr to continue,
without verification of consent, then we can just sit on our hands. And
talk and talk until everybody is tired of the discussion and wants to talk
about something else, leaving everything exactly as it was.

> You know what other sites are "riddled with copyright violations"?
> YouTube, Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people
> working to keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not
> perfect, but they are an asset.
>

YouTube and Flickr would strongly disagree with that assertion. (They have
staff.)

> Indeed, aren't they? Try clicking the "Random file" button in the lefthand
> nav, and see how long it takes you to get to some kind of nudity or
> sexuality etc. I've done so hundreds of times in the last year or two, and
> have yet to find a file that struck me as potentially offensive.
>

If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including
images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names,
according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm
told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly
faster than the Wikimedia response.

The cucumber ladies still have their pictures on Commons, even though the
Flickr account the images were scraped from has long been deleted:

(SFW:) http://www.flickr.com/photos/phoenixontherise/6092639951/

The image pages concerned show no evidence that consent was ever asked for.
All they say is this:

This image, originally posted to *Flickr
*, was reviewed on September 11, 2011 by the
administrator
 or reviewer  *File
Upload Bot (Magnus
Manske)
*, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license
on that date.

(NSFW:) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dede_Cucumber_0437.jpg

Maybe it would be time to nominate the set of images in "Category:Sexual
penetrative use of cucumbers" for deletion, given that the Flickr account
is gone, and there is no evidence that the women ever consented to the
Flickr upload, let alone the Commons upload?

When one of the set was up for deletion a while ago, consent was not even
mentioned:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dede_Cucumber_0437.jpg

Nobody took note of the "Photographed by Heinrich" logo in the bottom right
corner either. It seems their eyes were elsewhere. :)

There is not even a personality rights warning. And on top of it, the
images come with precise, pinpoint geolocation, with helpful links to
Google Maps, Google Earth and OpenStreetMap, so you can see which house
they were taken in. It's nuts.

Andreas
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/l

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)


Ryan Kaldari, 08/05/2013 07:09:

On 5/7/13 9:57 AM, Russavia wrote:

Frankly, I don't know why this is a "feminist" issue; rather than an
issue of common sense.


Agreed. I often find it is counter-productive to frame these sort of
debates in terms of feminism/sexism/etc. [...]


Sure. I'm not following this list that closely lately, but since when 
it's been hijacked by musty debates on nudity images? Is it the end of 
any hope in the usefulness of this list/group, or just a phase?
	I guess it's a pattern, we now entered the equivalent of the 1980s 
decadence of feminism. 
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/pornography/background/CMC_article.html
«Combining both sexual preference issues and political coercion 
concerns, Pat Califia sees the MacKinnon/Dworkin legal initiative as 
opening the door for suppression of gay rights and the gay life-style.»
	So in the next decade we may see better understanding. Is there 
something we can learn from the past to make this process less painful?
Maybe: «Feminists should reconsider their role in advancing or 
obstructing the agendas of sex worker unions, and how their work on 
behalf of the many victims of sexual violence can be continued without 
perpetuating the marginalization of sex performers and providers.»

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/
	Or as a student says: «In the course of my research, I do believe that 
the older feminist stance on pornography, as represented by the leaders 
of the heyday of the feminist anti-pornography movement, Catherine 
McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, is one that has been subsequently revealed 
to be both outdated and no longer useful for modern feminists. [...] I 
would argue in focusing on the evils of pornography, feminists are 
merely masking larger, deeper, and far more important issues.» 
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1630


Nemo

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Hi Pete, et al

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> You know what other sites are "riddled with copyright violations"? YouTube,
> Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to
> keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not perfect, but they
> are an asset.

I know of a site riddled with copyright violations. The Christian
Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-recalls-in-US-history/Jarts-lawn-darts
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lawndarts.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0226/Were-those-the-bones-of-Cleopatra-s-murdered-sister
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ac_artemisephesus.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-recalls-in-US-history/Tylenol
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extra_Strength_Tylenol_and_Tylenol_PM.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/Slinky-1945
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006-02-04_Metal_spiral.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0621/Queen-of-Sheba-left-genetic-legacy-to-Ethiopians-study-finds
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saabaghiberti.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/diggin-it/2011/0630/Enjoy-the-fruit-from-the-serviceberry-tree
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amelanchier_alnifolia.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0702/A-newer-cheaper-Kindle-DX-will-it-matter
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Three_Generations_of_Kindles.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/Nintendo-Game-Boy-1989
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gameboy_Pocket.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1221/Magnitude-7.4-earthquake-strikes-near-southern-Japanese-island-tsunami-warning-issued
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_location_map.svg)

Sigh! Now I have to notify more contributors about their work
basically being used in violation of their licencing by the very
organisation, who supposedly, according to Dan Murphy, says Commons
has "a bad reputation for accurate licensing".

It is most unfortunate that Dan Murphy has linked his employer to his
idiotic bashing and trolling of Commons/Wikimedia projects. And it is
little wonder that he didn't think that they would be interested in
doing a guest blog for the troll Gregory Kohsyou know the old
sayingthose in glass houses and all that.

I wonder whether Andreas will publicly post this to the same thread on
Wikipediocracy where he and others are trolling this very list. I
won't hold my breathe!

Cheers,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Pete,
>
> 
>

> Yet now, faced with those "horrible" things that happen "on our site all
> the time", and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you
> want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things
> Commons does.
>
> Shame on you.
>

Andreas, although I have no *personal* obligation to do so, I fully intend
to continue working on these complex problems, much as I have been for a
couple of years. The first step, in my view, is to develop a thorough
understanding of how things are, while resisting the urge to resort to
sweeping generalizations and finger-pointing. I invite you to join me.

> Oliver said a very stupid thing.
>

If it appears my previous message was addressed to any one specific person
-- it was not. It was intended to address the oft-repeated claim that
"Commons is broken," (or variants on that which cast a negative light on
volunteer contributors to Commons) which a number of different people have
said here and in other conversations.

Your seizing on it to deflect from the fact that the spirit and letter of
> the board resolution are routinely ignored in Commons looks like a devious
> gambit that presents us with a wonderful opportunity to distinguish those
> who pay mere lip service to the idea of putting those "horrible" things
> right from those who actually want to.
>

My position on the board resolution is basically that it was
well-intentioned but not useful. I do not know whether or not this was the
intent, but the phrasing of the resolution has nothing to say about nudity
or anything related. If the board's intent was to have portraits of authors
sitting at their desks, and the like, deleted in the absence of an explicit
consent form of some kind, then the resolution is probably fine; but I sort
of hope that's not what they meant to do. Drawing these lines is a thorny
problem that, frustrating though it is, does not have an obvious solution I
can see. As I have said before, I am happy to work with you or anyone on
drafting a better policy. (I realize you offered a two word edit, but in my
view this is not a substantive effort to engage with the problem, so it
doesn't merit much pursuit. Still, I appreciate your making that effort.)

As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law,
>

tl;dr

> So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may
> have lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the
> world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site
> is riddled with copyright violations.
>

You know what other sites are "riddled with copyright violations"? YouTube,
Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to
keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not perfect, but they
are an asset.

Meanwhile, I have worked toward the deletion of, I'd guess, about 20
possible copyright violations on Commons in the last week or so. Just one
of many examples:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mary-williams.jpg
How
many have you reviewed?

> Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful.
>

Indeed, aren't they? Try clicking the "Random file" button in the lefthand
nav, and see how long it takes you to get to some kind of nudity or
sexuality etc. I've done so hundreds of times in the last year or two, and
have yet to find a file that struck me as potentially offensive.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

I'm sorry, what?

You want me to tell the person who has shitty regard for people's
privacy and thinks its funny to engage in libellous outing of others,
and does nothing but troll our projects, and makes comments in public
forums like "Young Ms. Stierch just isn't very clever, is she? She's
the best friend the status quo could ever have and doesn't realize
it.", what they can do to make sure their own house is in order?

Perhaps he can ask his lawyers; the same ones who stated, according to
him, "commons has such a bad reputation for accurate licensing that a
downstream user such as ourselves could ultimately be considered
culpable if anyone chose to go that route."

I will, however, do what I normally do when I come across such
violations -- that is inform the photographer, and provide some link
which lays out their rights as a photographer and copyright holder,
with additional links on how to formulate a letter to have
compensation paid. I have done this with some of my aviation
photographer buddies in Russia, and they been successful in obtaining
compensation of $500 for use of their photos on several occasions.

Again, have a nice day :)

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> I'll gladly pass your comment on, Russavia. How should the attribution read?
> At present it reads,
>
> Which way?
>
> Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons GNU Free Documentation License
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1106/From-a-distance-Syria-feels-like-Iraq-in-2004
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> Please inform your "kind" colleague, that if they intend to bag
>> Commons in future, they should ensure that their own house is in order
>> first; for I now have the sad duty to inform you that they have used
>> images from Commons with scant regard for licencing, and I have made a
>> note of this on the image concerned.
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Road_sign_Homs-Palmyra-Baghdad.jpg
>>
>> The lesson? Before accusing others of violating copyright (i.e.
>> Commons) one should stop and think twice before they open mouth and
>> insert foot.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

I'll gladly pass your comment on, Russavia. How should the attribution
read? At present it reads,

Which way?

Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons GNU Free Documentation License
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1106/From-a-distance-Syria-feels-like-Iraq-in-2004


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Russavia wrote:

> Andreas
>
> Please inform your "kind" colleague, that if they intend to bag
> Commons in future, they should ensure that their own house is in order
> first; for I now have the sad duty to inform you that they have used
> images from Commons with scant regard for licencing, and I have made a
> note of this on the image concerned.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Road_sign_Homs-Palmyra-Baghdad.jpg
>
> The lesson? Before accusing others of violating copyright (i.e.
> Commons) one should stop and think twice before they open mouth and
> insert foot.
>
> Regards,
>
> Russavia
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

And thank you Andreas for bringing this to our attention on a most
public list. You could have thrown a {{speedy}} template on it, and it
could have been dealt with on project. But I have gone ahead and
deleted it.

You have a most fabulous day Andreas, and your friend too :)

Cheers,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Andreas

Please inform your "kind" colleague, that if they intend to bag
Commons in future, they should ensure that their own house is in order
first; for I now have the sad duty to inform you that they have used
images from Commons with scant regard for licencing, and I have made a
note of this on the image concerned.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Road_sign_Homs-Palmyra-Baghdad.jpg

The lesson? Before accusing others of violating copyright (i.e.
Commons) one should stop and think twice before they open mouth and
insert foot.

Regards,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Pete,

The other day, Daniel Case referred on Commons to Commons' "failure as a
community to formulate a clear policy about posting identifiable nudes in
private places without any indication as to whether they have consented to
publication of those images under a licensing scheme that allows for nearly
unlimited reproduction, distribution and modification of them".

In reply you said, on Commons, "Daniel, I have no doubt that it happens on
our site all the time, and it's horrible, and it's something we should stop
if we possibly can."

Yet now, faced with those "horrible" things that happen "on our site all
the time", and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you
want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things
Commons does.

Shame on you.

Oliver said a very stupid thing. Your seizing on it to deflect from the
fact that the spirit and letter of the board resolution are routinely
ignored in Commons looks like a devious gambit that presents us with a
wonderful opportunity to distinguish those who pay mere lip service to the
idea of putting those "horrible" things right from those who actually want
to.

As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law, a
journalist friend of mine shared the following anecdote in discussion on
Wikipediocracy a couple of days ago:

---o0o---

My latest magazine piece (here if anyone is
interested)
is about Ambon, Indonesia, a place few professional photographers go to
anymore. The photo desk couldn't find anything decent to illustrate the
story, and I suggested maybe trolling through Wikipedia commons for old
Dutch public domain stuff. Photo editor cut me right off, told me they'd
introduced a strict policy a few years ago of never user anything from
commons because they invariably draw take-down notices and threats. Even in
the case of pictures of public domain works (an old map for instance), no
doing. He said the pictures themselves are frequently stolen from museums
or government archives. The lawyers told us that commons has such a bad
reputation for accurate licensing that a downstream user such as ourselves
could ultimately be considered culpable if anyone chose to go that route.

---o0o---

There was a coda to that when I found that his publication actually have
some Commons images on their website (though never in print editions,
apparently). I gave an example from last week:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2013/0506/Are-South-Africans-backward-Zambia-s-white-VP-says-so

It turns out it was a copyright violation: it is used on postzambia.com in
two articles dated three months prior to the Commons upload, which was done
by a drive-by account that never edited before or since.

http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=25747
http://www.postzambia.com/post-print_article.php?articleId=26113
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GuyScott.jpeg&oldid=72608459
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Scott&diff=497500562&oldid=497499217

And before someone clever comes along and suggests The Post probably took
it from Commons and put it on the articles' web pages three months after
publication, let us note that there are dozens of photographs of Mr Scott
on postzambia.com, as you would expect for a Zambian newspaper, whereas
Commons has exactly one: that one.

So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may have
lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the
world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site
is riddled with copyright violations.

Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful.

Andreas

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

> I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue.
>
> The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons
> are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends
> told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an
> extraordinary collection of bird photos, among many others. It's worth a
> look.[1]
>
> The collection of freely licensed photos and other files at Commons is
> enormous, diverse, and useful. It is fairly well organized. Tons of useless
> junk gets weeded out. Hundreds of Wikimedia projects are supported in their
> various missions.
>
> All this happens in spite of there being a firehose of junk and copyright
> violations pointed at Commons every single day.[2] In spite of the fact
> that native speakers of many, many languages have to find ways to work
> together. In spite of the fact that people bring astonishingly varied
> projects and dreams and hopes and expectations to their work on Commons.
>
> What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the
> volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to
> pitch in whatever w

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Pete Forsyth

I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue.

The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons
are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends
told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an
extraordinary collection of bird photos, among many others. It's worth a
look.[1]

The collection of freely licensed photos and other files at Commons is
enormous, diverse, and useful. It is fairly well organized. Tons of useless
junk gets weeded out. Hundreds of Wikimedia projects are supported in their
various missions.

All this happens in spite of there being a firehose of junk and copyright
violations pointed at Commons every single day.[2] In spite of the fact
that native speakers of many, many languages have to find ways to work
together. In spite of the fact that people bring astonishingly varied
projects and dreams and hopes and expectations to their work on Commons.

What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the
volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to
pitch in whatever way they see fit. Sorting through deletion nominations,
filling requests to rename files, considering policy changes, and -- my
personal favorite -- gradually amassing probably the best compendium of
knowledge about certain aspects of international intellectual property law
ever assembled in human history.

When I hear people refer to this community as "broken," I am amazed how out
of touch they are with the reality and exquisite beauty of what Commons is.
I can only assume they are overly influenced by a small number of edge
cases that have come to their attention god knows how, and have generalized
on those experiences to draw a fallacious conclusion.

With all that said, of course, there's a tremendous amount of stuff that
could and should be done to make Commons work better, to make it a more
inviting and respectful environment, to make it more effective at advancing
the Wikimedia mission.

But one thing I am damn sure is not part of that solution is offhand
insults directed at the community of dedicated volunteers who sustain and
nurture Commons. Even if there are unhealthy social dynamics in the way the
site functions (and there certainly are), I can't begin to imagine what
theory of progress would rely on calling them out as a reflection of the
overall health of the project.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JJ_Harrison
[2] For instance, one recent day saw 48 nominations for deletion:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2013/05/04

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Russavia wrote:

> And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that
> Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.
>
> I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on
> Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a
> guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000.
>
> But I do know that
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis
> and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis
> basically pales in comparison to
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport
>
> And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?
>
> Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel
> free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than
> ill-informed opinion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
> >> editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
> >> responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see
> >> elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.
> >>
> > I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread
> > something is going terribly wrong.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that
Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.

I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on
Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a
guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000.

But I do know that
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis
and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis
basically pales in comparison to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport

And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?

Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel
free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than
ill-informed opinion.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
>>
>> Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
>> editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
>> responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see
>> elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.
>>
> I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread
> something is going terribly wrong.
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Indeed, we could have a twice or thrice daily thread on English
Wikipedia about that very project, couldn't we?


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
>>
>> Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
>> editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
>> responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see
>> elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.
>>
> I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread
> something is going terribly wrong.
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

>
> Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
> editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
> responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see
> elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.
>
> I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread
something is going terribly wrong.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

I love how you say "more seriously" and then make a most unfortunate
and completely ridiculous statement -- "the failure of Commons to
produce much beyond pictures of genitals."

Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see
elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.

Just as an aside, can you tell me precisely how many of the 17 million
files we currently host are of these genitals you talk about?

Cheers,

Russavia

P.S. Fluff knows that I respect her position, and that I am not
attacking her at all.



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> More seriously; the idea that someone either volunteers themselves to enter
> an environment they find disturbing and uncomfortable, or they're actively
> contributing to it being disturbing and uncomfortable, is (frankly)
> bullshit. Katherine is not responsible for the failure of Commons to produce
> much beyond pictures of genitals. If they continue to do so, while she
> continues to refuse to get involved, it will still not be her
> responsibility.
>
> Where I come from, we tend to take the attitude that people are inherently
> capable of change - that if people are contributing to an awkward, and
> uncomfortable, and narrowly-scoped environment, they can in fact, very
> occasionally, come to understand this and solve for it.
>
> Now: it's true that groups can be aided in this by people from outside who
> understand the problem entering to help. But it does not follow that anyone
> from outside the environment who notes that there is a problem be /mandated
> to participate/ and shamed if they refuse.
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>>
>> That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who
>> didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes,
>> they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been part of the solution!
>> We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the lions' teeth
>> will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fluff,
>>>
>>> I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the
>>> solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway
>>> shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely
>>> what I mean by this.
>>>
>>> That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd
>>> be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Russavia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey
>>>  wrote:
>>> > Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
>>> > aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't
>>> > have the
>>> > energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
>>> > on
>>> > Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
>>> > respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment
>>> > where my
>>> > right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a
>>> > void
>>> > while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show
>>> > my
>>> > "tits".
>>> >
>>> > Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them
>>> > very
>>> > uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower
>>> > than
>>> > some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am
>>> > comfortable
>>> > speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
>>> > inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
>>> > speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to
>>> > brave
>>> > that environment.
>>> >
>>> > -Fluff
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia
>>> > 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hey Fluff,
>>> >>
>>> >> Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may
>>> >> not
>>> >> agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar
>>> >> views
>>> >> (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
>>> >> agree
>>> >> on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
>>> >> heard in
>>> >> the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
>>> >>
>>> >> I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting
>>> >> that
>>> >> you don't have many contributions there
>>> >>
>>> >> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), 
>>> >> and
>>> >> I am again urging you to come and join us.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you up for that challenge?
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >>
>>> >> Russavia
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air"
>>> >>> on
>>> >>> Common

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Alison Cassidy

I feel *exactly* the same way, and I'm a Commons admin :( This speaks for me, 
too.

-- Allie

On May 12, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Katherine Casey  
wrote:

> Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression 
> and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to 
> dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm 
> much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and 
> support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my 
> opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking 
> that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my "tits". 
> 
> Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very 
> uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some 
> other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable 
> speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the 
> inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my 
> speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave 
> that environment.
> 
> -Fluff
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Russavia wrote:

> And I see that you are just as active
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so
> you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience.
>

When I say that shaming is bad? Why, yes. Indeed, I have been a human with
empathic abilities for several decades now.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

And I see that you are just as active
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so
you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience.

It goes back to my response to Erik, that it is easier to sit back and
be negative, than it is to get involved. In terms of this list
specifically, you are basically preaching to the choir, and that's not
going to change a thing.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who
> didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes,
> they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been part of the solution!
> We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the lions' teeth
> will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>>
>> Fluff,
>>
>> I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the
>> solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway
>> shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely
>> what I mean by this.
>>
>> That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd
>> be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey
>>  wrote:
>> > Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
>> > aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have
>> > the
>> > energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
>> > on
>> > Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
>> > respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where
>> > my
>> > right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
>> > while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
>> > "tits".
>> >
>> > Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them
>> > very
>> > uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
>> > some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am
>> > comfortable
>> > speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
>> > inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
>> > speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to
>> > brave
>> > that environment.
>> >
>> > -Fluff
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey Fluff,
>> >>
>> >> Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may
>> >> not
>> >> agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar
>> >> views
>> >> (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
>> >> agree
>> >> on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
>> >> heard in
>> >> the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
>> >>
>> >> I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting
>> >> that
>> >> you don't have many contributions there
>> >>
>> >> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), 
>> >> and
>> >> I am again urging you to come and join us.
>> >>
>> >> Are you up for that challenge?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Russavia
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air"
>> >>> on
>> >>> Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the
>> >>> options you
>> >>> mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long
>> >>> IRC
>> >>> conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
>> >>> genuine
>> >>> impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
>> >>> discussions tend to go there.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Fluff
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

More seriously; the idea that someone either volunteers themselves to enter
an environment they find disturbing and uncomfortable, or they're actively
contributing to it being disturbing and uncomfortable, is (frankly)
bullshit. Katherine is not responsible for the failure of Commons to
produce much beyond pictures of genitals. If they continue to do so, while
she continues to refuse to get involved, it will still not be her
responsibility.

Where I come from, we tend to take the attitude that people are inherently
capable of change - that if people are contributing to an awkward, and
uncomfortable, and narrowly-scoped environment, they can in fact, very
occasionally, come to understand this and solve for it.

Now: it's true that groups can be aided in this by people from outside who
understand the problem entering to help. But it does not follow that anyone
from outside the environment who notes that there is a problem be /mandated
to participate/ and shamed if they refuse.


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who
> didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes,
> they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been *part of the
> solution!* We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the
> lions' teeth will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia wrote:
>
>> Fluff,
>>
>> I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the
>> solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway
>> shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely
>> what I mean by this.
>>
>> That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd
>> be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey
>>  wrote:
>> > Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
>> > aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't
>> have the
>> > energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
>> on
>> > Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
>> > respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment
>> where my
>> > right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
>> > while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
>> > "tits".
>> >
>> > Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them
>> very
>> > uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
>> > some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am
>> comfortable
>> > speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
>> > inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
>> > speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to
>> brave
>> > that environment.
>> >
>> > -Fluff
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia > >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey Fluff,
>> >>
>> >> Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may
>> not
>> >> agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar
>> views
>> >> (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
>> agree
>> >> on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
>> heard in
>> >> the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
>> >>
>> >> I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting
>> that
>> >> you don't have many contributions there
>> >> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter),
>> and
>> >> I am again urging you to come and join us.
>> >>
>> >> Are you up for that challenge?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Russavia
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air"
>> on
>> >>> Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the
>> options you
>> >>> mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long
>> IRC
>> >>> conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
>> genuine
>> >>> impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
>> >>> discussions tend to go there.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Fluff
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mai

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who
didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes,
they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been *part of the
solution!* We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the
lions' teeth will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia wrote:

> Fluff,
>
> I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the
> solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway
> shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely
> what I mean by this.
>
> That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd
> be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey
>  wrote:
> > Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
> > aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have
> the
> > energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on
> > Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
> > respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where
> my
> > right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
> > while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
> > "tits".
> >
> > Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very
> > uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
> > some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am
> comfortable
> > speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
> > inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
> > speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to
> brave
> > that environment.
> >
> > -Fluff
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Fluff,
> >>
> >> Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may
> not
> >> agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar
> views
> >> (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
> agree
> >> on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
> heard in
> >> the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
> >>
> >> I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting
> that
> >> you don't have many contributions there
> >> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter),
> and
> >> I am again urging you to come and join us.
> >>
> >> Are you up for that challenge?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Russavia
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air"
> on
> >>> Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the
> options you
> >>> mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long
> IRC
> >>> conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
> genuine
> >>> impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
> >>> discussions tend to go there.
> >>>
> >>> -Fluff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
> >
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Fluff,

I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the
solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway
shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely
what I mean by this.

That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd
be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".

Cheers,

Russavia


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey
 wrote:
> Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
> aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the
> energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on
> Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
> respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my
> right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
> while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
> "tits".
>
> Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very
> uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
> some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable
> speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
> inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
> speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave
> that environment.
>
> -Fluff
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Fluff,
>>
>> Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not
>> agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views
>> (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree
>> on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in
>> the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
>>
>> I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that
>> you don't have many contributions there
>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and
>> I am again urging you to come and join us.
>>
>> Are you up for that challenge?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Russavia
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on
>>> Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
>>> mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
>>> conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine
>>> impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
>>> discussions tend to go there.
>>>
>>> -Fluff
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Katherine Casey

Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have
the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my
right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
"tits".

Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very
uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I *am *comfortable
speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
speaking here it will provide support to the people who *are *willing to
brave that environment.

-Fluff

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia wrote:

> Hey Fluff,
>
> Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not
> agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views
> (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
> agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
> heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
>
> I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that
> you don't have many contributions there (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter),
> and I am again urging you to come and join us.
>
> Are you up for that challenge?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on
>> Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
>> mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
>> conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
>> genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
>> discussions tend to go there.
>>
>> -Fluff
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Hey Fluff,

Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not
agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views
(but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.

I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that
you don't have many contributions there (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and
I am again urging you to come and join us.

Are you up for that challenge?

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on
> Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
> mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
> conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
> genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
> discussions tend to go there.
>
> -Fluff
>
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Katherine Casey

Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on
Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
discussions tend to go there.

-Fluff


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Russavia wrote:

> You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the
> community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe
> below is covered by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality
> .
>
> If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop
> talking on this list (and elsewhere) and make proposals on Commons instead
> for full community input.
>
> I hate to tell you this, but blowing hot air on this list or on other
> websites will not bring about change. As I've stated, it's all about the
> venue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
>> (While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
>> discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
>> to it.)
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
>>
>> The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
>> partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
>> visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
>> "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons." Further photographs
>> showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.
>>
>> The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
>> closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>>  File:Labret phallic 
>> coddling.jpg
>>
>> To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in
>> source." This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We
>> need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
>> Conti 
>> |✉
>>  19:36,
>> 11 March 2013 (UTC)
>>
>>- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and
>>on Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem.
>>Given that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *
>>Keep*. -- 
>> Infrogmation
>> (talk )
>>02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream,
>> person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos,
>> some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. -- 
>> Infrogmation
>>  (talk )
>> 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent,
>> instead of defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when
>> it comes to identifiable people in sexually explicit images? 
>> --Conti
>> |✉  12:10, 12 March
>> 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
>> please see {{2257 }}.
>> For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
>> depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
>> number of years (flickr 
>> set),
>> some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
>> justifiably in my opinion 
>> --moogsi
>>  (blah ) 18:31, 25
>> March 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi.
>> This deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav 
>> Faigl
>>  (talk )
>> 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
>> --
>>
>> Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
>> photos. -*mattbuck * (
>> Talk ) 02:00, 1
>> April 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>> The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
>> particularly relevant in this reg

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the
community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe
below is covered by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality.

If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop talking
on this list (and elsewhere) and make proposals on Commons instead for full
community input.

I hate to tell you this, but blowing hot air on this list or on other
websites will not bring about change. As I've stated, it's all about the
venue.

Cheers,

Russavia



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
> (While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
> discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
> to it.)
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
>
> The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
> partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
> visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
> "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons." Further photographs
> showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.
>
> The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
> closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
>
> ---o0o---
>
>  File:Labret phallic 
> coddling.jpg
>
> To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in
> source." This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We
> need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
> Conti 
> |✉
>  19:36,
> 11 March 2013 (UTC)
>
>- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
>Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem. Given
>that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*.
>-- Infrogmation  (
>talk )
>02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
>
> Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream,
> person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos,
> some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. -- 
> Infrogmation
>  (talk ) 02:57,
> 12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
> defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
> identifiable people in sexually explicit images? 
> --Conti
> |✉  12:10, 12 March
> 2013 (UTC)
>
> [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
> please see {{2257 }}.
> For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
> depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
> number of years (flickr 
> set),
> some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
> justifiably in my opinion 
> --moogsi
>  (blah ) 18:31, 25
> March 2013 (UTC)
>
> [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This
> deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav 
> Faigl
>  (talk )
> 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
> --
>
> Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
> photos. -*mattbuck * (
> Talk ) 02:00, 1
> April 2013 (UTC)
>
> ---o0o---
>
> The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
> particularly relevant in this regard:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with
> permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), it's still desirable to
> ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because
> publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite
> different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used
> on Wikipedia.
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html
>
> ---o0o---
>
> In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flick

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
(While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
to it.)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg

The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
"This work depicts one or more identifiable persons." Further photographs
showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.

The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:

---o0o---

File:Labret phallic
coddling.jpg

To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in source."
This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We need more
information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
Conti
|✉ 19:36, 11 March 2013
(UTC)

- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem. Given
that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*. --
Infrogmation
(talk)
02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person
shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of
which describe her as the photographer's wife. --
Infrogmation
(talk ) 02:57,
12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
identifiable people in sexually explicit images?
--Conti
|✉ 12:10, 12 March 2013
(UTC)

[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
please see {{2257 }}. For
the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
number of years (flickr
set),
some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
justifiably in my opinion
--moogsi
(blah ) 18:31, 25
March 2013 (UTC)

[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This
deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav
Faigl
(talk ) 01:49,
1 April 2013 (UTC)
--

Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
photos. -*mattbuck *
(Talk
) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---o0o---

The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
particularly relevant in this regard:

---o0o---

Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with
permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), it's still desirable to
ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because
publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite
different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used
on Wikipedia.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html

---o0o---

In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr account
holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded to
Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a Commons user who specialised in uploading
sexual media from Flickr. I believe a similar role has more recently been
played by a different account, Handcuffed, after Max Rebo Band ceased
editing in early 2011.

No indication is given that the Flickr account holder or the woman depicted
are aware of and have consented to the Commons upload. Instead, it appears
it is assumed in Commons that if a man uploads sexual images of his current
or former wife (or a woman who is neither, but whom he describes as such)
to Flickr's adult section, this means that the woman in question is aware
of and has consented to the Flickr upload, and is happy for her likeness to
be uploaded to Wiki

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Erik, et al

Just a heads up that I have responded to your question at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Evidence_of_consent

I invite all gender gap list members to come to Commons to read what
is written, and get involved.

Cheers,

Russavia



On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Russavia  
> wrote:
>
>> But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on
>> my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a
>> suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the
>> community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group.
>
> That's fine, will repost on your talk page.
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:

>
> It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could
> proactively deal with these kinds of things.
>
> (They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures,
> but that's another matter...)

I really don't think so Tom. I'm fairly active in these discussions, and
feel my views are generally given appropriate weight. (I've done very
little on OTRS for some time, but so I might not exactly fit the
description, but I consider our OTRS team kindred spirits!)

Sometimes a case is closed counter to my vote; in some of those cases, I
learn something I didn't know. The Stollzow case is a very rare exception
where I feel the wrong decision was made; I don't think it's fair to
generalize from fringe cases like this. It can be a pretty congenial place
to work, and dissenting views are in my experience given fair
consideration. (Care and clarity in expressing one's views is always a
consideration, because of the huge linguistic and philosophical diversity
among Commons contributors.)

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Tom Morris

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:48, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a 
> case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying 
> about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for 
> deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high that it 
> requires OTRS in a straightforward case like this.

In the case of the Stollzow case, I'd exercise a little caution only because 
she's from the skeptic community and there's been a lot of back-and-forth about 
feminism and gender equality in that community. It wouldn't put it past people 
to sock to nominate women skeptics for deletion. 

It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could proactively 
deal with these kinds of things.

(They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures, but 
that's another matter...) 

-- 
Tom Morris

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Tom, I agree with your concern. But if the principle is that we should
enforce the board resolution anywhere it applies, we should simply delete
this photo without needing OTRS, right? It's an issue of who's obligated to
do what. The board resolution clearly states that if there is no
demonstration of consent, the file must be deleted. So the subject
shouldn't even need to assert her dissent for the deletion to go through,
if we're to be true to the resolution.

This gets problematic pretty quickly, though, when you think about the huge
number of innocuous and useful images of people in private places on
Wikipedia and other projects. For instance, when the Wikimedia Foundation
published a photo of me on its site, of course they consulted me before
publishing it, and I gave my consent; but that is not reflected in the
Commons file, there's no way for the viewer to know whether I consented or
not. So going by the letter of the resolution, this (and most other
Wikimedia Foundation staff photos) would have to be deleted:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Pete_Forsyth.jpg

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

p.s. I just noticed there is more of a history to the Karen Stollznow file
than I remembered. Looks like it was uploaded more than once:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_1.jpg

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:

> On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
> (presumably) private setting in a library:
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
> >
> > The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
> compelling enough.
> >
> > What would be a good outcome in this case?
>
> The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on,
> register a username on Commons and say "Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my
> image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete."
>
> Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm
> that the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.
>
> Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the
> side of caution - in this case, probably deleting.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a
case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying
about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for
deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high that
it requires OTRS in a straightforward case like this.

It seems to me the board resolution covers this case, but was disregarded.
I'm curious to hear other perspectives.

-Pete


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
> in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
> give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
> no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
> the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So
> a "good outcome" to my mind would have been asking the person to verify
> that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the
> image. "In scope", which is the content of the actual close there, is
> pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons
> adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to
> actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue.
>
> Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation
> of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it
> doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's
> featured - we should not be hosting it.
>
> -Fluff
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
>> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
>> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
>> (presumably) private setting in a library:
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
>>
>> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
>> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
>> compelling enough.
>>
>> What would be a good outcome in this case?
>>
>> And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
>> that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
>> That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
>> getting us closer to an answer.
>>
>> Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Tom Morris

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board 
> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a 
> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a 
> (presumably) private setting in a library:
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
> 
> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did *not* 
> give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that compelling 
> enough.
> 
> What would be a good outcome in this case?

The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on, 
register a username on Commons and say "Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my 
image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete."

Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm that 
the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.

Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the side 
of caution - in this case, probably deleting. 

-- 
Tom Morris




___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Katherine Casey

>From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So
a "good outcome" to my mind would have been asking the person to verify
that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the
image. "In scope", which is the content of the actual close there, is
pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons
adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to
actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue.

Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation
of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it
doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's
featured - we should not be hosting it.

-Fluff


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
> (presumably) private setting in a library:
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
>
> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
> compelling enough.
>
> What would be a good outcome in this case?
>
> And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
> that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
> That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
> getting us closer to an answer.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
(presumably) private setting in a library:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg

The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
*not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
compelling enough.

What would be a good outcome in this case?

And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
getting us closer to an answer.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Jane Darnell

For what it's worth, I added my comments to your page on Meta

2013/5/9, Sarah Stierch :
> Yay! Erik replied. Seriously, I was beginning to think no one from the
> Foundation read this mailing list anymore aside from me and Kaldari (and we
> read it as volunteers!). See comments below.

>> Is there a page on Meta already where we're coordinating overall
>> policy reform issues relating to the gender gap (whether WMF or
>> community policies) that should be considered?
>>
>> Erik
>>
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution
>
> There is now. Folks need to remember - Wikipedia is where Wikipedia policy
> is developed, meta is where larger scale policy is developed. So it's the
> best place to be for this type of work right now.
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
> *www.sarahstierch.com*
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Russavia  wrote:

> But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on
> my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a
> suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the
> community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group.

That's fine, will repost on your talk page.

Thanks,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Erik,

I will answer your questions, only too happy to, and you are free to
pass my answers on to others within the foundation. Because it is
something that I have trying addressing with others in the foundation
in the past, but which has been ignored by way of no reply.

But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on
my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a
suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the
community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group.

Is that ok with you?

Cheers,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Russavia  wrote:
> I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the
> idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here.

Hey Russavia,

independent of whether there are other reasons to delete these
particular images, can you clarify whether you agree that these types
of images should be deleted if no evidence of consent can be provided?

I'm asking because as an admin, my expectation is that you consider it
your responsibility to enforce Commons policy and Board policy. Admins
are given generally some discretion in the implementation of policies,
but adminship is supposed to mostly be the routine application of
existing policies and community consensus.

The policy that we don't host images from people in private places
where evidence of consent is missing seems pretty clear to me. I think
it's reasonable to give the uploader time to provide evidence of
consent, but it's also reasonable to delete the images after the end
of the DR and undelete if evidence is provided later. Do you disagree?

I don't think the hypothesis that the images are or could be revenge
porn is even relevant to that question. Even if they are uploaded in
good faith ("I put them on Flickr with permission and now I'm
uploading them to Commons"), it's still desirable to ask for evidence
of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because publishing a
photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite
different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially
used on Wikipedia.

Thanks,
Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Fluffernutter,

That is a totally ridiculous comment to make.

Do I have to show you just how ridiculous it is by generating a list
of sexuality discussions that Mattbuck has 1) nominated for deletion
or 2) closed as delete.

Of course, if one was more active on Commons
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter)
they would see that for themselves, instead of relying on ridiculous
assertions being peddled by others.

C'mon now.

Russavia



On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Katherine Casey
 wrote:
> Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
> play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that "closed by Mattbuck
> as delete" probably ought to be a "finish your drink" qualifier...
>
> -Fluffernutter
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
>  wrote:
>>
>> >It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:
>>
>> >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50
>>
>> >Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
>> > watching how what goes.
>>
>> Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50
>>
>> Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:
>>
>> One drink:
>>
>> Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
>> Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
>> Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
>> User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
>> Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
>> wait a while.
>> Closed by Mattbuck as keep.
>>
>> Two drinks:
>>
>> User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
>> actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
>> Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
>> Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like
>> sticking it to the Man!” vein.
>> Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
>> over that.
>> Closed by another admin as keep.
>>
>> Three drinks:
>>
>> Closed by Mattbuck as delete.
>>
>> Daniel Case
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Russavia wrote:

> I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the
> idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia

The message you posted at the DR,

---o0o---

*Comment* This nomination is a somewhat pointish trolling nomination as
noted here
. *There is NO evidence of this being revenge porn.* The only suggestion of
such is here on the gendergap mailing
list
 by User:Jayen466  (so
take anything from that source with a grain of salt). Now, let's look at
these unfounded comments on this being "revenge porn"; it does not add up;
it makes for nice emotional fallacy, but not much else. If one looks at the
sets  of photos taken by
the photographer are obviously as part of their amateur photography. All
EXIF data checks out (same camera being used), and Google and Tineye
searches reveal nothing of concern. It is somewhat clear say from this
set
(and
other sets) that the photos are part of an amateur photoshoot. The consent
issue is easily rectified by contacting the photographer and asking if they
have consent to publish the photos...I am sure someone will do so.
russavia
 (talk ) 03:45, 10
May 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50

---o0o---

is based on a misunderstanding of what I said in the linked post. The point
I made there about revenge porn was in response to earlier comments by Pete
Forsyth and concerned images of women who are not identifiable (my point
being that for revenge porn to "work", it is not necessary for the woman's
face to be shown). It did not pertain to these images, in which the women
clearly *are* identifiable.

I believe these images should be deleted if there is no evidence that the
models are aware of and have consented to their upload to Wikimedia sites.
There is no evidence that they have consented to their upload to Flickr
either, of course.

The original categories applied by the pseudonymous uploader on Wikimedia
Commons ("Big Titts", "Titts", "Naked" etc.) suggest a purely exploitative
mindset.

A difference between Flickr and Wikimedia that comes into play here is that
on Flickr, the images are visible only to users who have signed into a
Flickr account whose preferences are set to viewing adult images,
restricting their audience to Flickr's adult images community, whereas on
Wikimedia, they are visible to all and sundry.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Nepenthe

File:Ronda F7998.JPGis
clearly in scope. Could be used to illustrate "Urn", "Vase",
"Pottery",
"Crosslegged" etc.



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Russavia wrote:

> I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the
> idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Katherine Casey
>  wrote:
> > Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
> > play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that "closed by
> Mattbuck
> > as delete" probably ought to be a "finish your drink" qualifier...
> >
> > -Fluffernutter
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> >It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:
> >>
> >> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50
> >>
> >> >Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
> >> > watching how what goes.
> >>
> >> Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50
> >>
> >> Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:
> >>
> >> One drink:
> >>
> >> Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
> >> Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
> >> Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
> >> User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
> >> Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
> >> wait a while.
> >> Closed by Mattbuck as keep.
> >>
> >> Two drinks:
> >>
> >> User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
> >> actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
> >> Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
> >> Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like
> >> sticking it to the Man!” vein.
> >> Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
> >> over that.
> >> Closed by another admin as keep.
> >>
> >> Three drinks:
> >>
> >> Closed by Mattbuck as delete.
> >>
> >> Daniel Case
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
> >
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the
idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Katherine Casey
 wrote:
> Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
> play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that "closed by Mattbuck
> as delete" probably ought to be a "finish your drink" qualifier...
>
> -Fluffernutter
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
>  wrote:
>>
>> >It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:
>>
>> >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50
>>
>> >Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
>> > watching how what goes.
>>
>> Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50
>>
>> Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:
>>
>> One drink:
>>
>> Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
>> Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
>> Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
>> User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
>> Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
>> wait a while.
>> Closed by Mattbuck as keep.
>>
>> Two drinks:
>>
>> User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
>> actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
>> Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
>> Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like
>> sticking it to the Man!” vein.
>> Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
>> over that.
>> Closed by another admin as keep.
>>
>> Three drinks:
>>
>> Closed by Mattbuck as delete.
>>
>> Daniel Case
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Katherine Casey

Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that "closed by Mattbuck
as delete" probably ought to be a "finish your drink" qualifier...

-Fluffernutter


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>   >It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:
>
> >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50
>
> >Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
> watching how what goes.
>
> Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50
>
> Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:
>
> One drink:
>
> Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
> Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
> Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
> User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
> Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
> wait a while.
> Closed by Mattbuck as keep.
>
> Two drinks:
>
> User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
> actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
> Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
> Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like
> sticking it to the Man!” vein.
> Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
> over that.
> Closed by another admin as keep.
>
> Three drinks:
>
> Closed by Mattbuck as delete.
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Daniel and Elizabeth Case

>It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

>Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in watching how 
>what goes.

Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50

Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:

One drink:

Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just wait a 
while.
Closed by Mattbuck as keep.

Two drinks:

User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that 
actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like 
sticking it to the Man!” vein.
Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get over 
that.
Closed by another admin as keep.

Three drinks:

Closed by Mattbuck as delete.

Daniel Case
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Actually, it's total gobbledygook.

But can you confirm that what you take it to mean is that quite simply
consent is required if the photo is taken in a private place with an
expectation of privacy?

Cheers

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Russavia wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that
> editors
> > are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in
> > private situations to Wikimedia websites.
>
> Define "private situations".
>
> Thank you.

It may be helpful if I quote the entire resolution, as the word "private"
occurs several times in it:

---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed
content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We
also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on
our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to
limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to
take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when
publishing biographies of living persons.

However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private
place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and
ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with
our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that
seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of
the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as
Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent
difficult to verify.

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

   - Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
   identifiable
people
with
   the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media,
   including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The
   evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the
   uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from
   identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place.
   This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied
   consistently.
   - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place
   regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private
   situations.
   - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted
   on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others
   to do the same.

Approved 10-0.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people

---o0o---

The proposed change is merely to add the words "on Wikimedia sites" in the
sentence "We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject
consent for the use of such media *on Wikimedia sites*, in line with our
special mission as an educational and free project."

COM:IDENT explores this in more detail, speaking of a "reasonable
expectation of privacy":

---o0o---

The *right of privacy* is the right to be left alone and not to be made the
subject of public scrutiny without consent. The right to privacy is
enshrined in several international laws though the details with regard to
photographs vary from country to country. Images must not unreasonably
intrude into the subject's private or family life.

The law on privacy concerning photographs can be crudely divided into
whether the photograph was taken in a private or public place. A *private
place* is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy and
a *public place* is somewhere where the subject has no such expectation.
The terms are unrelated to whether the land is privately or publicly owned.
For example, a tent on a beach is a private place on public land and a
concert is a public place on private property. A place may be publicly
accessible but still retain an expectation of privacy concerning
photography, for example a hospital ward during visiting hours. Whether the
place is private or not may also depend on the situation at the time: for
example that same hospital ward would have been a public place during a
tour before it opens.

In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is
not as a rule required to photograph people in public places and publish
those photos. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary,
overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g.,
picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require
that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has
consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the
image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual.

In many countries the subject's consent *is* needed to

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that editors
> are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in
> private situations to Wikimedia websites.

Define "private situations".

Thank you.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
>>> upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
>>> do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
>>> Commons, community?
>>
>>
>> Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect
>> community consensus, but guide it.
>>
>
> It's not that clear-cut. Again, I think the TOU rewrite is a good example
> of how the community and the board can make progress together effectively.
> A great deal of wisdom and passion resides in the global community that has
> brought Wikimedia to the point it is at today, alongside more frustrating
> elements. But in this case, I would say something initiated on this list
> (by one part of the community) and improved upon by others, in other
> venues, would be a great way to draft a proposed resolution for the board's
> consideration.
>
>>
>>

Well, I'll have a go then:

---o0o---

We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the
use of such media *on Wikimedia sites*, in line with our special mission as
an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an
image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of
uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance
is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

---o0o---

Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that editors
are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in
private situations to Wikimedia websites.

Do you agree with the principle? Or do you think editors should continue to
upload images taken in a private place or situation to Wikimedia sites
without the knowledge and consent of the people depicted?
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia 
> wrote:
>
>> Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
>> upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
>> do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
>> Commons, community?
>
>
> Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect
> community consensus, but guide it.
>

It's not that clear-cut. Again, I think the TOU rewrite is a good example
of how the community and the board can make progress together effectively.
A great deal of wisdom and passion resides in the global community that has
brought Wikimedia to the point it is at today, alongside more frustrating
elements. But in this case, I would say something initiated on this list
(by one part of the community) and improved upon by others, in other
venues, would be a great way to draft a proposed resolution for the board's
consideration.

>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>> > Pete,
>> >
>> > Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then
>> we can
>> > request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.
>> >
>> > Andreas
>>
>
If there's some desire to pursue this, I will gladly participate. I agree,
this would be an excellent project, and I'd be proud to be part of it.
Crafting the right language to avoid undesirable consequences will take
work, and I don't know enough to do it by myself. But I do think that
encompassing more than merely "identifiable" subjects is an important
factor to keep in mind, in addition to more specificity around what the
model is expected to "consent" to.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia wrote:

> Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
> upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
> do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
> Commons, community?
>


Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect
community consensus, but guide it.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Commons community were consulted
prior to the announcement of the existing wording either.



> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> > Pete,
> >
> > Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we
> can
> > request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.
> >
> > Andreas
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> Hi, I have some comments inline.
> ---o0o---
>
>>
>> This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
>> the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
>> on Flickr under the stated license on that date.
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>> Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.
>>
>>
> As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a
>> fool to waste my time contributing there.
>>
>>
>
> Andreas, just curious, have you tried nominating anything like this for
> deletion with citing the board statement? I think we start experimenting
> with that (I can't do that right now, as I'm in an airport restaurant and
> not feeling comfortable looking at that image right now!). I'm curious how
> that would work.
>
> We could develop a process:
>
> 1) Nominate for deletion with that clause called into play (since our
> challenges for being non-education or out of scope will be challenged most
> likely)
> 2) If challenged on discovering model consent, generic email letter
> developed to "email" Flickr account owner (since that's often the plague of
> this)
> 3) If account is deleted, the image should be deleted assuming no other
> acceptance of model agreement is able to be discovered based
> on anonymity of model and deletion of Flickr account.
> 4) Fight the good fight on Commons.
>
> Perhaps we can develop something like that. Seriously, for years, it's
> often been..me, pete, Kevin, and Kaldari (and if you've been involved,
> forgive me for not listing you) who have nominated content for deletion.
>
> Again "stop bitching, start a revolution" comes into play here.
>



I have wasted too many hours already arguing deletion cases which were then
closed as "Keep" by Mattbuck.

How about we ask Erik, who started Wikimedia Commons, to nominate them,
citing the board resolution? This would make a stronger impression.

What do you say, Erik? Or do you feel these images should remain on Commons?

Just for reference, the images we are talking about are here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

All are Flickr imports, uploaded pseudonymously. None have evidence of
model consent for use on Wikimedia projects. The women concerned are most
likely unaware that the images are on Commons.




> Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment
>> of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give
>> a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to
>> intervene.
>>
>>
>
> This is where it falls two ways IMHO:
>
> 1) It's up to US to start *trying* to implement said compliance
> 2) If it's not being complied too, we need to know who to contact
>
> And if that means sending a crap ton of emails to le...@wikimedia.org, so
> be it. Right? Because we aren't informed of any other type of action to be
> taken in the TOS, or whatever other policies developed by the board. Unlike
> copyright infringement, nothing is suggested on what *we* can do when this
> stuff is happening.
>
>
> We can try to implement, and then when it fails, directly contact the
> Foundation.
>
> Seriously, sitting here on this mailing list is great, we're getting
> conversation started (Again) about it, but...we need to do more!
>
> -Sarah
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
> *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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
Commons, community?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Pete,
>
> Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we can
> request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.
>
> Andreas

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Pete,

Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we
can request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.

Andreas

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> The resolution wording is:
>
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>> We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for
>> the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational
>> and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is
>> especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs
>> from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace
>> and subject consent difficult to verify.
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>> I don't see anything ambiguous about that.
>>
>
> I find it highly ambiguous, and while I tend to agree with you that
> probably the majority of nude images on Commons should be deleted due to
> lack of explicit and verifiable declarations of consent, I do not feel the
> wording quoted above would be helpful in persuading others of that. (In
> addition, the absence of a clearly documented process for obtaining and
> expressing consent doesn't help. Again, something that anybody can do, very
> little technical knowledge required.)
>
> "Consent" is a verb that is only useful in its transitive form. It is
> meaningless to say "the subject consents." Consents *to what*? "...for
> the use of such media" is not specific. Also, "we feel" is not language
> that lends itself to strong project-specific policies.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

The resolution wording is:

>
> ---o0o---
>
> We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the
> use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and
> free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is
> especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs
> from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace
> and subject consent difficult to verify.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> I don't see anything ambiguous about that.
>

I find it highly ambiguous, and while I tend to agree with you that
probably the majority of nude images on Commons should be deleted due to
lack of explicit and verifiable declarations of consent, I do not feel the
wording quoted above would be helpful in persuading others of that. (In
addition, the absence of a clearly documented process for obtaining and
expressing consent doesn't help. Again, something that anybody can do, very
little technical knowledge required.)

"Consent" is a verb that is only useful in its transitive form. It is
meaningless to say "the subject consents." Consents *to what*? "...for the
use of such media" is not specific. Also, "we feel" is not language that
lends itself to strong project-specific policies.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Sarah Stierch

Hi, I have some comments inline.





> ---o0o---
>
> This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
> the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
> on Flickr under the stated license on that date.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.
>
>
As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a
> fool to waste my time contributing there.
>
>

Andreas, just curious, have you tried nominating anything like this for
deletion with citing the board statement? I think we start experimenting
with that (I can't do that right now, as I'm in an airport restaurant and
not feeling comfortable looking at that image right now!). I'm curious how
that would work.

We could develop a process:

1) Nominate for deletion with that clause called into play (since our
challenges for being non-education or out of scope will be challenged most
likely)
2) If challenged on discovering model consent, generic email letter
developed to "email" Flickr account owner (since that's often the plague of
this)
3) If account is deleted, the image should be deleted assuming no other
acceptance of model agreement is able to be discovered based
on anonymity of model and deletion of Flickr account.
4) Fight the good fight on Commons.

Perhaps we can develop something like that. Seriously, for years, it's
often been..me, pete, Kevin, and Kaldari (and if you've been involved,
forgive me for not listing you) who have nominated content for deletion.

Again "stop bitching, start a revolution" comes into play here.



>
>
> Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment
> of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give
> a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to
> intervene.
>
>

This is where it falls two ways IMHO:

1) It's up to US to start *trying* to implement said compliance
2) If it's not being complied too, we need to know who to contact

And if that means sending a crap ton of emails to le...@wikimedia.org, so
be it. Right? Because we aren't informed of any other type of action to be
taken in the TOS, or whatever other policies developed by the board. Unlike
copyright infringement, nothing is suggested on what *we* can do when this
stuff is happening.


We can try to implement, and then when it fails, directly contact the
Foundation.

Seriously, sitting here on this mailing list is great, we're getting
conversation started (Again) about it, but...we need to do more!

-Sarah




-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Pete,
>>
>> I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of
>> nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts, with no
>> indication whatsoever that the women concerned are aware of and have
>> consented to the upload,
>>
>
> 
>
> Andreas, you are of course correct. I believe two factors address the
> distance between what you and I said:
>
> (1) The word "consent" is not qualified in the Board's resolution, which
> invites this critical question in every case: are we talking about consent
> to be photographed, or consent to have the photo released under a free
> license on a widely viewed, open access web site? This is obviously a
> question of critical importance. The resolution's language doesn't provide
> much guidance. In practice, the places where Commons participants do well
> are with photos where it's visually clear that the subject may not have
> consented to being photographed at all, in the first place (i.e., no reason
> to believe the subject is even aware of the camera).
>

The resolution wording is:

---o0o---

We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the
use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and
free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is
especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs
from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace
and subject consent difficult to verify.

---o0o---

I don't see anything ambiguous about that.

This topless image is typical:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely_F3247.JPG

Categorised under "Hooters". Zero evidence of model consent for the use of
this image.

Here is another of the same woman:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely.JPG

This was okayed by Commons administrator Mattbuck:

---o0o---

This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

---o0o---

Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.

As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a
fool to waste my time contributing there.

> (2) The existence of files on Commons, vs. the ones where somebody takes
> the trouble to write a well-formed nomination for deletion, is a huge one.
> My comments concern only the latter; but of course, there are many
> thousands of files on Commons that could or should be nominated for
> deletion, but haven't. It's important to acknowledge that while such cases
> may reflect the intent of the uploading individual, they by no stretch of
> the imagination reflect the considered judgment of the Commons community.
>

Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment of
the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give a
toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to
intervene.

This reminds me of the defence proffered by some with respect to the recent
women's categorisation controversy following Amanda Filipacchi's op-ed
about Wikipedia's sexism in the New York Times: that these categorisations
were in violation of obscure guidelines.

Having guidelines does not absolve an organisation from responsibility for
its actions when in practice it makes no effort to enforce them.

You are simply in denial. Address the reality, rather than hiding behind a
policy that is not observed in practice.

Andreas
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Pete,
>
> I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of
> nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts, with no
> indication whatsoever that the women concerned are aware of and have
> consented to the upload,
>

Andreas, you are of course correct. I believe two factors address the
distance between what you and I said:

(1) The word "consent" is not qualified in the Board's resolution, which
invites this critical question in every case: are we talking about consent
to be photographed, or consent to have the photo released under a free
license on a widely viewed, open access web site? This is obviously a
question of critical importance. The resolution's language doesn't provide
much guidance. In practice, the places where Commons participants do well
are with photos where it's visually clear that the subject may not have
consented to being photographed at all, in the first place (i.e., no reason
to believe the subject is even aware of the camera).

(2) The existence of files on Commons, vs. the ones where somebody takes
the trouble to write a well-formed nomination for deletion, is a huge one.
My comments concern only the latter; but of course, there are many
thousands of files on Commons that could or should be nominated for
deletion, but haven't. It's important to acknowledge that while such cases
may reflect the intent of the uploading individual, they by no stretch of
the imagination reflect the considered judgment of the Commons community.

Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Pete,

I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of
nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts, with no
indication whatsoever that the women concerned are aware of and have
consented to the upload, or indeed that the images are public domain.

It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in watching
how what goes.

The problem with "identifiable" is that when someone posts revenge porn on
Commons, it matters not one jot whether the face of the woman performing
whatever sex act is depicted is visible or not. It is enough for the former
boyfriend to tell everyone in his and his ex-girlfriend's social circle on
Facebook or wherever about the image to ruin her life.

Andreas


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah  wrote:
>>
>> > A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism,
>> > sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an
>> > educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.
>>
>
> 
>
>
>> In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the
>> WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs
>> of identifiable people:
>>
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
>
>
> Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about
>> "private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for
>> strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons:
>>
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>>
>> There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged
>> individually to help further develop and refine this policy to
>> elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread.
>> And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that
>> conversation.
>>
>
> I think some discussion of the outcomes of this resolution might be
> productive. As a frequent participant in deletion decisions on Wikimedia
> Commons, my very strong sense is that we do well at complying with the
> letter of that particular resolution resolution. In my experience, when
> somebody nominates an unclothed photo of a clearly identifiable subject for
> deletion, and there is no evidence of the person's consent, the file is
> generally deleted without any particular resistance.
>
> Unfortunately, this leaves two major gaps: (1) cases where reasonable
> people could and do disagree about whether or not somebody is identifiable,
> and (2) cases where those concerned about the subject find a particular
> photo problematic irrespective of whether or not he or she is identifiable.
>
> I believe the Board acted with very good intentions with that resolution,
> but there is an unintended consequence that identifiability has become the
> focus of many of these discussions. I think board action to address this
> problem would be welcome and effective; but I would hope that new language
> be carefully considered and vetted before passage to try to anticipate and
> avoid further undesirable consequences.
>
>
>>
>> It's also worth noting on the subject of Commons that WMF did _not_
>> withdraw the Controversial Content resolution from May 2011, only the
>> personal image hiding feature component thereof. The resolution also
>> contained other recommendations consistent with reinforcing the
>> educational scope of Wikimedia Commons:
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
>
>
>>
>> "We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active
>> curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization,
>> removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for
>> inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but
>> missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating
>> all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining
>> whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle
>> of least astonishment in categorization and placement."
>>
>> "We urge the Wikimedia Foundation and community to work together in
>> developing and implementing further new tools for using and curating
>> Commons, to make the tasks of reviewing, deleting, categorizing,
>> uploading and using images easier.
>
>
> In my view, this resolution missed the biggest area of opportunity, which
> can be done by anyone: to develop essays, guidelines, or policies on
> Commons that describe common scenarios, and outline effective outcomes.
> Those of us processing deletion nominations on Commons are drinking from a
> firehose; by my estimation, every day has dozens of nominations, some days
> well over 100. Ther

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Closely related to this, though, is a really good software development
> opportunity. It's not exciting and would not grab any headlines, but it
> would make a big difference: if the workflow for processing deletion
> requests were made smoother, those engaging in it could get more done,
> spending more time considering each request and less time clicking buttons,
> typing code, etc; and if it were made more transparent and better documented
> (including useful links built into wiki pages and templates), it would be
> easier for new people (say, those from this list) to get involved and help
> process the nominations.

Quickly responding to this part: Completely agree. The process on
Commons right now is massive overkill given the transaction volume on
Commons.

Part of the goals for the Flow project is better management of
workflows like AfD [1], and we will likely also want to build
optimized workflows just for media files. That's what I was referring
to when I talked about breaking out of the small group discussion
patterns among the same people. Building accessible workflows is key
to increasing diversity, in my view.

Erik

[1] See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow_Portal/Workflow_Description_Module
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah  wrote:
>
> > A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism,
> > sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an
> > educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.
>

> In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the
> WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs
> of identifiable people:
>
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people

Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about
> "private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for
> strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>
> There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged
> individually to help further develop and refine this policy to
> elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread.
> And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that
> conversation.
>

I think some discussion of the outcomes of this resolution might be
productive. As a frequent participant in deletion decisions on Wikimedia
Commons, my very strong sense is that we do well at complying with the
letter of that particular resolution resolution. In my experience, when
somebody nominates an unclothed photo of a clearly identifiable subject for
deletion, and there is no evidence of the person's consent, the file is
generally deleted without any particular resistance.

Unfortunately, this leaves two major gaps: (1) cases where reasonable
people could and do disagree about whether or not somebody is identifiable,
and (2) cases where those concerned about the subject find a particular
photo problematic irrespective of whether or not he or she is identifiable.

I believe the Board acted with very good intentions with that resolution,
but there is an unintended consequence that identifiability has become the
focus of many of these discussions. I think board action to address this
problem would be welcome and effective; but I would hope that new language
be carefully considered and vetted before passage to try to anticipate and
avoid further undesirable consequences.

>
> It's also worth noting on the subject of Commons that WMF did _not_
> withdraw the Controversial Content resolution from May 2011, only the
> personal image hiding feature component thereof. The resolution also
> contained other recommendations consistent with reinforcing the
> educational scope of Wikimedia Commons:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content

>
> "We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active
> curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization,
> removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for
> inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but
> missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating
> all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining
> whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle
> of least astonishment in categorization and placement."
>
> "We urge the Wikimedia Foundation and community to work together in
> developing and implementing further new tools for using and curating
> Commons, to make the tasks of reviewing, deleting, categorizing,
> uploading and using images easier.

In my view, this resolution missed the biggest area of opportunity, which
can be done by anyone: to develop essays, guidelines, or policies on
Commons that describe common scenarios, and outline effective outcomes.
Those of us processing deletion nominations on Commons are drinking from a
firehose; by my estimation, every day has dozens of nominations, some days
well over 100. There are probably 5-10 regular participants and
administrators processing these, with others dropping in more occasionally.
The key lesson in that is that carefully phrased nominations that make
reference to policies and guidelines tend to be more successful than those
that, for instance, include words like "obviously." It is not uncommon for
files that clearly violate various policies to be kept, simply because the
nomination is vague or confusing, and would require more time to consider
than we have resources for.

Closely related to this, though, is a really good software development
opportunity. It's not exciting and would not grab any headlines, but it
would make a big difference: if the workflow for processing deletion
requests were made smoother, those engaging in it could get more done,
spending more time considering each request and less time clicking buttons,
typing code, etc; and if it were made more transparent and better
documented (including useful links built into wiki pages and templates), it
would be easier for new peop

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's
> used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy
> prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat
> analogous.
>
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

Come on Erik, the mere fact that the Terms of Use mention the word
"harassment" in the sentence "Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking,
spamming, or vandalism; and Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to
other users." is a very weak straw to cling to here!

The Terms of Use section most closely related to our discussion is actually
this one:

---o0o---

*Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes*

   - Posting child pornography or any other content that violates
   applicable law concerning child pornography;
   - Posting or trafficking in obscene material that is unlawful under
   applicable law; and
   - Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable
   law.

---o0o---

This allows editors to introduce everything to the work environment that is
allowed in a porn shop. Hence the "hot sex barnstar" in Commons, which if
challenged would no doubt be defended with gleeful jeers of NOTCENSORED.

The point I have been trying to get across here in this list is that the
welcoming attitude to pornography in Wikimedia projects affects *male
contributors' mindsets*, making men more likely to be subtly dismissive of
women, and making women feel unvalued, depressed and demoralised – with
corresponding effects on women's participation.

This is not brain surgery. Millions of workplaces reflect this in their
workplace rules, but you don't have any equivalent.

There is plenty of published research on this; here is an example,
describing the effects on both women's and men's state of mind:

---o0o---

Courts that have found a hostile environment as a result of pornography and
sexual banter have often cited negative psychological effects of
pornography similar to those described in the social science literature.
The opinions point to emotional distress, such as fear,37 humiliation,38
and low self-esteem.39 They also indicate that ambient harassment of this
type makes it hard for the subjected women to focus on work.40 The court in
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.41 found that the emotional upset
created by this type of harassing behavior, combined with its negative
impact on job performance, was sufficient to “alter the conditions of [the
victim’s] employment.”42

Further, courts have recognized that the prevalence of pornography and
sexualized language in the workplace makes it *more difficult for women to *
*be viewed professionally by their male coworkers.43 In such environments, *
*men are more likely to disrespect and to sexually demean women.*44 In
Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.,45 the court found that in “an environment
where women were viewed primarily in terms of women qua women: sexual
objects and inferior to men,” a “reasonable woman would find the terms,
conditions, and privileges of her employment affected by that harassment.”46

The expert in Jenson cited the results of a study that he had conducted,47
which demonstrated that *mere exposure to sexist advertisements made men
more likely to view women in the workplace in a sexualized manner and less
likely to view them as professionally competent.*48 The court found that
this study was probative of the question whether a female employee’s terms
and conditions of employment were impacted,49 and it summarized the study’s
findings as follows:

The results showed that [male] subjects who had been sexually primed
selected almost twice as many sexist questions [to ask a female interview
candidate] as subjects who had not been primed. The results further showed
that men who had been primed moved physically closer to the woman than
non-primed males and evaluated the female interviewee in a sexist
manner—rating her as “more friendly and less competent.”50

This research lends empirical weight to the idea that a sexualized
workplace
places a discriminatory burden on female employees.51

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n2/945/LR102n2BergerParker.pdf

---o0o---

With your very permissive policies and culture you are encouraging male
mindsets which according to mainstream scholarship actively undermine and
discourage female participation.

To be clear, I can't say that I have observed very many cases of men coming
onto women in Wikimedia talk pages, but dismissive attitudes and the sorts
of superior, smug, hair-splitting contributions that seem to take a
perverse pleasure in frustrating a woman contributor are very common.

The Foundation goes on and on and on in the press about the gender gap, yet
is not prepared to do what every workplace does as a matter of course to
facilitate women participating on equal terms. Do you understand why I feel
you ar

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Sarah Stierch

Yay! Erik replied. Seriously, I was beginning to think no one from the
Foundation read this mailing list anymore aside from me and Kaldari (and we
read it as volunteers!). See comments below.

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah  wrote:
>
> > A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism,
> > sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an
> > educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.
>
Most egregious examples of these behaviors are already in violation of
> site terms of use and community policies, but I agree that a strong
> reinforcement of core values could help. Agendas unrelated to the
>

First, I agree with Sarah. While we can go "oh the Foundation has this
policy, and this policy as approved by the board," having a formal,
non-legal speak statement that is shared with the press, the world, etc,
stating we're not tolerating any type of crap - racism, sexism, homophobia,
etc. - could make quite an impact.

It might even cut down on vandalism (recent "faggot" blow up regarding that
basketball player where his teams page was vandalized and then the
community failed to strike the changes and edit summary until the press
caught wave of it and then they struck it, fail) and step up administrative
duties to make sure "crap" is removed off the permanent record quicker.

And it's not that hard - to draft up a no-tolerance statement. I sign one
when I started my job at WMF, but no one reads terms of services, right?
(except a 2% of community members and the people who write it :) )  This
serves as a reminder.

> The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's
> used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy
> prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat
> analogous.
>
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

Here's a question: so, if someone harasses me on Wikipedia (and it happened
recently, and it'll happen again) I can point to this TOS and that can do
what with that user? It took days for admins to go back and forth with the
editor who harassed me (and another editor) before they finally blocked the
guy forever (he had harassed other people before and he had been blocked
temporarily). So what can *I* do with this TOS when something happens to me
next?

What are my actions to take to make sure that things move quickly and the
situation gets resolved as fast as possible, because as we know, it doesn't
often get resolved quickly? And as an admin prone to harassment, I can't do
much about it because of "conflict of interest." So what can/should I do?

That's one thing I see missing from that section. A "here's what you do if
you're harassed" but, thankfully there is a section for what to do if you
fear copyright violations. (DMCA compliance) (and yes, I'm being sarcastic)

>
> In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the
> WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs
> of identifiable people:
>
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
>
> Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about
> "private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for
> strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

Yes, and this was the last thing "this" mailing list had some influence on
regarding policy. And it's still awaiting to be seriously implemented in my
humble opinion. And with so much crap on Commons, and that whole drama with
the crap that gets downloaded from Flickr (i.e. "Russian porn" that gets
mysteriously deleted from Commons after being uploaded but is still
maintained on Commons and they refuse to download) and so forth with little
to no knowledge of what "contract" a person signed - Commons has found ways
to get around this I'm sure, in many ways.

>
>
> There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged
> individually to help further develop and refine this policy to
> elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread.
> And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that
> conversation.
>
>
Yes, that's what I'm saying. What more can we do than just sit here on this
list and complain about it?

> Similarly, on things like acceptable content in user space, en.wp has
> a pretty sophisticated and carefully considered policy which already
> prohibits needlessly provocative content, and which could be developed
> further to explain how such content can be seen as harassing and
> damage an environment where people can work together productively.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages
>
>
Yes, but that's a user page. Remember the pregnancy article drama? Talk
about an unsafe place - especially the talk

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Sarah Stierch

Quick email - traveling -

Pete makes a good point and in the end that's what I'm failing (but trying) to 
suggest: we have the same conversation every 6 months.

We need to do something more substantial. When drama hits on wikimedia-l the 
Foundation (I'm a volunteer on this list, as my department doesn't do anything 
with TOS, etc) comments, the community drafts things on meta, and sometimes 
change happens - here, we just get irritated and talk in circles and the 
Foundation seems to not even notice our concerns. And when I do rage about it 
at the office, it falls on the ears of people who have nothing to do with 
policy/TOS change and/or I just look like the "bitchy gender gapper" and 
everyone states at me with blank eyes. 

What can WE do to get the Foundation to take MORE notice? Or the Board? We need 
to do something. Something bigger than 6 same people talking on this list. The 
last "impact" we made regarding some form of policy was the personality rights 
template almost 1-2 years ago. 

And I agree with Sarah - if this was about racism or "extreme situations" I 
think the Foundation would be stepping up. The only people in the press writing 
about Wikipedia's "porn problem" is Greg Kohs. And that isn't even "real" 
press, it's the freaking Examiner. 

Perhaps someone should write an oped about it. I have media connections - and 
if it could be a woman, preferably, all the better. I cannot do it. 

I bet if people knew more about the "real" hardcore (no pun intended) 
situations going on regarding sexism on Wikipedia (ie categories are silly 
compared to what is happening here) perhaps people would finally click and want 
to change things

We have grassroots efforts to get more women and academics to write Wikipedia 
now around the world.

We need a grassroots effort for more than just that, and the same people can't 
keep doing it all without risking their sanity and burn out.

What the hell is it going to take to get people here raged enough that they 
want to do MORE then talk on this list? 

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Sarah  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Sarah  wrote:
>>> Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation.
>>  
>> Sarah, 
>> 
>> I know this is a tangent to what you're talking about, but I think it's an 
>> important point. Last year's rewrite of the terms of use was guided by 
>> Foundation staff, but in my view and that of many others was a model project 
>> for how to follow the knowledge and wisdom that exists within our community. 
>> There was draft text from WMF counsel, but in a two month+ period it was 
>> radically altered and expanded by a process led by numerous volunteers and 
>> community members. WMF staff provided legal expertise, but went out of itse 
>> way to express that the knowledge of how to align the TOU with the 
>> movement's goals resided primarily within the community, and created a space 
>> in which that could be explored and articulated.
>> 
>> While it does not do much to address concerns about gender, I believe that 
>> the TOU rewrite was a big success, both in terms of modeling how the 
>> volunteer community can lead and WMF can facilitate and play a support role; 
>> and also in terms of the quality of the final document.
>> 
>> Of course, these documents can be rewritten, and I'm sure this one will be 
>> rewritten in a few years. Before that, though, will be a rewrite of the 
>> Privacy Policy, which actually may be a more suitable document for some of 
>> these concerns. I encourage everyone on this list to participate when the 
>> time comes for that, which I think will be a matter of weeks or months.
>> 
>> Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> 
> Thanks, Pete, that's helpful. Would you mind pinging us when the privacy 
> policy discussions begin? I'm sure there will be lots of notifications, but 
> it's really easy to miss the significance of these things.
> 
> Sarah
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah  wrote:

> A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism,
> sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an
> educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.

Most egregious examples of these behaviors are already in violation of
site terms of use and community policies, but I agree that a strong
reinforcement of core values could help. Agendas unrelated to the
gender gap aside, I agree that _some_ change should continue to come
from the top, while some needs to continue to come from all of us. I
say "continue" because to say that things haven't already progressed
significantly from where they were 2 or 3 years ago would be
misleading.

The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's
used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy
prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat
analogous.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the
WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs
of identifiable people:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people

Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about
"private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for
strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged
individually to help further develop and refine this policy to
elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread.
And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that
conversation.

Similarly, on things like acceptable content in user space, en.wp has
a pretty sophisticated and carefully considered policy which already
prohibits needlessly provocative content, and which could be developed
further to explain how such content can be seen as harassing and
damage an environment where people can work together productively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages

It's also worth noting on the subject of Commons that WMF did _not_
withdraw the Controversial Content resolution from May 2011, only the
personal image hiding feature component thereof. The resolution also
contained other recommendations consistent with reinforcing the
educational scope of Wikimedia Commons:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content

"We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active
curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization,
removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for
inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but
missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating
all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining
whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle
of least astonishment in categorization and placement."

"We urge the Wikimedia Foundation and community to work together in
developing and implementing further new tools for using and curating
Commons, to make the tasks of reviewing, deleting, categorizing,
uploading and using images easier."

On the last point, it's not dropped off our radar. Better media
patrolling and review tools are on the agenda for the new multimedia
engineering team which we're currently hiring for. Lowering the
barrier to flag media that have no realistic educational value (for
whatever reason) may help create a greater culture of shared
responsibility for curating Commons and keeping it useful, rather than
allowing personal interests to dominate small group discussions.
Thoughts on how software design could positively affect user behavior
and lead to increased diversity in decision-making are greatly
appreciated.

Is there a page on Meta already where we're coordinating overall
policy reform issues relating to the gender gap (whether WMF or
community policies) that should be considered?

Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Sarah  wrote:
>
>> Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation.
>>
>
> Sarah,
>
> I know this is a tangent to what you're talking about, but I think it's an
> important point. Last year's rewrite of the terms of use was guided by
> Foundation staff, but in my view and that of many others was a model
> project for how to follow the knowledge and wisdom that exists within our
> community. There was draft text from WMF counsel, but in a two month+
> period it was radically altered and expanded by a process led by numerous
> volunteers and community members. WMF staff provided legal expertise, but
> went out of itse way to express that the knowledge of how to align the TOU
> with the movement's goals resided primarily within the community, and
> created a space in which that could be explored and articulated.
>
> While it does not do much to address concerns about gender, I believe that
> the TOU rewrite was a big success, both in terms of modeling how the
> volunteer community can lead and WMF can facilitate and play a support
> role; and also in terms of the quality of the final document.
>
> Of course, these documents can be rewritten, and I'm sure this one will be
> rewritten in a few years. Before that, though, will be a rewrite of the
> Privacy Policy, which actually may be a more suitable document for some of
> these concerns. I encourage everyone on this list to participate when the
> time comes for that, which I think will be a matter of weeks or months.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>

Thanks, Pete, that's helpful. Would you mind pinging us when the privacy
policy discussions begin? I'm sure there will be lots of notifications, but
it's really easy to miss the significance of these things.

Sarah
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Sarah  wrote:

> Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation.
>

Sarah,

I know this is a tangent to what you're talking about, but I think it's an
important point. Last year's rewrite of the terms of use was guided by
Foundation staff, but in my view and that of many others was a model
project for how to follow the knowledge and wisdom that exists within our
community. There was draft text from WMF counsel, but in a two month+
period it was radically altered and expanded by a process led by numerous
volunteers and community members. WMF staff provided legal expertise, but
went out of itse way to express that the knowledge of how to align the TOU
with the movement's goals resided primarily within the community, and
created a space in which that could be explored and articulated.

While it does not do much to address concerns about gender, I believe that
the TOU rewrite was a big success, both in terms of modeling how the
volunteer community can lead and WMF can facilitate and play a support
role; and also in terms of the quality of the final document.

Of course, these documents can be rewritten, and I'm sure this one will be
rewritten in a few years. Before that, though, will be a rewrite of the
Privacy Policy, which actually may be a more suitable document for some of
these concerns. I encourage everyone on this list to participate when the
time comes for that, which I think will be a matter of weeks or months.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation does something," what are you
> looking for them to do?
>
> You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on
> what "they" could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I
> was you.
>
> As you very well know, grantmaking and technical aren't able to do much of
> anything, due to our new focus. However, community members are welcome to
> develop Individual Engagement Grants and chapters are able to acquire
> funding for programs and projects, and the gender gap is something everyone
> loves to talk about over and over and over again but no one seems to be
> willing to step up as individuals or as chapters to make large scale
> changes outside of outreach activities. (And I am grateful for all people
> do on this list, but..I'm just sayin...it seems to be the same people over
> and over again bringing this up, however, all people seem to do to about it
> is complain and talk about it, and take no action, and it's really tiring
> and depressing to watch and puts the burden on those of us who have limited
> time and are already burnt out).
>
> -Sarah
>
> Andreas is one of the few editors who does a lot to try to counter these
things, but a group of volunteers can't turn this around on our own. And
until the atmosphere changes, we're unlikely to attract good new editors,
especially women, so we're in a chicken-and-egg situation. The argument is
that the Foundation is the only structure in a position to change things in
the kind of radical way that's needed.

For example, the Foundation did a lot of good by backing the need for good
BLP policies, even though their statement didn't say anything new.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_peopleBut
it offered moral support to the editors who were trying to change
attitudes toward BLP, and that did make a difference on the ground. We
still have BLP problems, but they're better than they used to be, and
easier to change when we find them.

A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism,
sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an
educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.

Sarah
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>>
>>> Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation does something," what are
>>> you looking for them to do?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as
>> I am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR
>> exercises, and no deeds.
>>
>
>
>
>
>> Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons, making it clear that the
>> more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome.
>>
>>
> The community would have to do that. Wikimedia Foundation doesn't do that.
> Wikimedia Foundation didn't invent Commons or create the scope for Commons,
> as far as I know. (I could be wrong though.) So I'm not sure why that would
> fall into the scope. If Wikimedia stepped in and said "Ok Commonists, here
> is your new scope," all hell would break lose and we'd most likely have a
> fork.
>

Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation. I think the suggestion
is that Wikipedia is often a hostile work environment for women because of
sexism, and so the question is whether something about not creating a
hostile environment in that way could be added to the terms of use. (I know
it would be difficult to find the right words.)

We don't have a similar situation with racism, and wouldn't tolerate it if
one developed. I'm trying to think of an analogy. It might be something
like uploading thousands of photographs of African Americans as slaves, or
being lynched, then adding to them to unrelated articles whenever possible.
We wouldn't allow that to happen -- those responsible would be blocked, and
the images would at least be removed from unrelated articles without
argument.

Commons is a separable issue (though obviously related, attitude-wise).
Would it be a huge problem if it were to fork? Or if a separate pornography
project were to be created by the Foundation or others?

Sarah
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up