Re: [Gendergap] High-heeled shoes as a case study
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sarah, The principle of least surprise is roughly the following: People who go to a category/gallery/encyclopedia-article expecting something (shoes) should not be surprised by something they may find offensive (naked women wearing shoes). One way to ensure this is to make clearly labelled subcategories for the potentially offensive material. In this case, I made a subcategory: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes and within that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes so everyone who visits that category knows exactly what they're going to see in advance. Sarah, If you look through my contributions on Commons, you see the way that I usually handle changing categories on images with nudity or sexually provocative images. I use a descriptive edit summary, and if I get reverted I remove it again, and leave a talk page message. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionslimit=250target=FloNight I don't re-add a different category back unless I think that someone would truly want to look for an image in the category. Often you would need to create a new category because one that specific does not exist. The problem with adding back categories with titles that make it obvious that the category contains sexual content is that these categories will show up in searches for the the non-controversial term. The same is true of file names that combine sexual terms with household objects. For example, a search for toothbrush brings up a women masturbating with an electric toothbrush toward the top of the search results even though it long appears in category toothbrush. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=toothbrushfulltext=Searchns0=1ns6=1ns12=1ns14=1ns100=1ns106=1redirs=0 (At least the Commons link on Wikipedia no longer will take you to the image since the image was taken out of Category:Toothbrushes). The categories have been changed a half a dozen times on this since then because there are differences of opinion about how to categorize this type of image. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Masturbating_with_a_toothbrush.jpgdiff=prevoldid=55049406 In my view the over categorization of sexual content makes Commons look like it has more sexual content than it really has. Some of the categories that people have created border on being ridiculous. Many of them eventually get removed into a more general category. For example eventually, now File:Masturbating_with_a_toothbrush.jpg only has 2 categories, and both seem appropriate. This is getting off topic from the core mission of the email list, so if you want more detailed help drop me an email. Sydney User:FloNight Regarding your Flickr question: Whether the account is deleted or not doesn't usually change whether or not the picture is in scope. But deleted accounts do make the copyright status more questionable. At the time of upload, the bot would check that the license is correct, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the Flickr user is uploading copyright violations to their Flickr account (Flickrwashing). If there are other likely signs of copyright violation, I would nominate for deletion (as I did for the other image mentioned in this thread http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Young_girl_with_see-through_tops_and_shorts.jpg). When the account is still active, you can also check the rest of the Flickr user's contributions to get a good sense of whether they are really the author of the photos they're uploading. Snapshots aren't necessarily out of scope just because they're snapshots, they're sometimes realistically useful for an educational purpose. Toby On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Toby - Sorry to be a n00b but, can you explain what you mean by refactoring this category according to the principle of least surprise? For anyone else - if you find an image that has been uploaded by a Flickr bot, and the Flickr account has been deleted what do you do? I notice a large portion of images like this are often snapshot uneducational photos (here is an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labace_%2824%29.jpg) I was going to nominate it for just being out of scope because Commons is not a repository for snapshots. ;) Asking questions like this on Commons-L isn't very pleasant, so thanks for helping! Thanks, Sarah On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: I've made a start on refactoring this category according to the principle of least surprise. Feel free to do this whenever you notice a surprising image in a mundane category. Regarding consent, if any of the identifiable women are in private locations,
Re: [Gendergap] High-heeled shoes as a case study
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Just a follow up... It doesn't even matter, anymore. Some of these images have been nominated before, and been kept. They all just keep stating I don't know the policies and that they are in scope. Perhaps it all is and perhaps I really am an idiot who just can't comprehend the policies, despite reading things multiple times. I think the policy about Flickr accounts being deleted and it doesn't matter is one of the stupidest ideas. Two of the images I nominated have incorrect licenses and were still uploaded from Flickr and okayed by a bot, despite the Flickr account stating they are all rights reserved. I also don't get how a deleted Flickr account can still be considered a source. Commons is really good at making a smart person feel stupid and like a gnat. -Sarah Sarah I know that some of the images have been nominated before and kept, and some of the images have to be repeatedly re-categorized, too. I get frustrated and at times feel that it is a time sink with no end in sight. That is the reason that I wrote to the mailing list to discuss the matter as an community issue. I have come to believe that is rooted in the culture values of the WMF editors who add loads of these images to commons. We can't walk away from the issue because it is too important. We need to discuss it so that we can better understand why that we are having trouble addressing the issue in a way that is promotes an inclusive editing environment. Sydney On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sarah, The principle of least surprise is roughly the following: People who go to a category/gallery/encyclopedia-article expecting something (shoes) should not be surprised by something they may find offensive (naked women wearing shoes). One way to ensure this is to make clearly labelled subcategories for the potentially offensive material. In this case, I made a subcategory: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes and within that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes so everyone who visits that category knows exactly what they're going to see in advance. Regarding your Flickr question: Whether the account is deleted or not doesn't usually change whether or not the picture is in scope. But deleted accounts do make the copyright status more questionable. At the time of upload, the bot would check that the license is correct, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the Flickr user is uploading copyright violations to their Flickr account (Flickrwashing). If there are other likely signs of copyright violation, I would nominate for deletion (as I did for the other image mentioned in this thread http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Young_girl_with_see-through_tops_and_shorts.jpg). When the account is still active, you can also check the rest of the Flickr user's contributions to get a good sense of whether they are really the author of the photos they're uploading. Snapshots aren't necessarily out of scope just because they're snapshots, they're sometimes realistically useful for an educational purpose. Toby On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Toby - Sorry to be a n00b but, can you explain what you mean by refactoring this category according to the principle of least surprise? For anyone else - if you find an image that has been uploaded by a Flickr bot, and the Flickr account has been deleted what do you do? I notice a large portion of images like this are often snapshot uneducational photos (here is an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labace_%2824%29.jpg) I was going to nominate it for just being out of scope because Commons is not a repository for snapshots. ;) Asking questions like this on Commons-L isn't very pleasant, so thanks for helping! Thanks, Sarah On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: I've made a start on refactoring this category according to the principle of least surprise. Feel free to do this whenever you notice a surprising image in a mundane category. Regarding consent, if any of the identifiable women are in private locations, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PEOPLEhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoesapplies, and the uploader should state that permission was obtained to take publish the image. If this has not been done, please either contact the uploader or propose deletion. Toby Hudson / 99of9 On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.comwrote: Category:High-heeled shoes is an excellent example of the current problem WMF projects are having with creating and disseminating content that is unbiased.
[Gendergap] Females and underrepresented students coming onboard
Dear Colleagues, I am too busy right now to weigh in on everything I'd like to; I have expertise on gender and diversity, which is why I'm here. I am offering the gendergap list to my Wikipedia class (university) students effective next week, so please anticipate new faces. The greatest concentration will be female, but I am pleased we have a diverse group, ethnically, linguistically, and culturally. Please be kind to our newcomers; we may all make some mistakes while coming to understand Wikipedia's liberties and constraints. I will not assign the list in terms of coursework, but I want (especially female) students to know this forum exists. Some students will have staying power; I see it as a shared privilege to encourage all students demonstrating an inclination to get involved with Wikipedia contributing. Thank you in advance for supporting new subscribers to this list, and the goal of greater gender and diversity equity in Wikipedia. KSRolph ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Females and underrepresented students coming onboard
Thank you Karen for letting us know that you are inviting your students to the mailing list. It would be great to hear their perspective on the topics related to gender and Wikipedia (and Wikimedia). So, I hope that they decide to participate. Sydney FloNight On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Karen Sue Rolph karenro...@hotmail.comwrote: Dear Colleagues, I am too busy right now to weigh in on everything I'd like to; I have expertise on gender and diversity, which is why I'm here. I am offering the gendergap list to my Wikipedia class (university) students effective next week, so please anticipate new faces. The greatest concentration will be female, but I am pleased we have a diverse group, ethnically, linguistically, and culturally. Please be kind to our newcomers; we may all make some mistakes while coming to understand Wikipedia's liberties and constraints. I will not assign the list in terms of coursework, but I want (especially female) students to know this forum exists. Some students will have staying power; I see it as a shared privilege to encourage all students demonstrating an inclination to get involved with Wikipedia contributing. Thank you in advance for supporting new subscribers to this list, and the goal of greater gender and diversity equity in Wikipedia. KSRolph ___ 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] High-heeled shoes as a case study (and what makes me mad about Commons)
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDH9Jq5AWkQ It's this uncomfortable tension that I feel when I log into Commons. I'm on the Warriors side. ***(and rant below) I know that some of the images have been nominated before and kept, and some of the images have to be repeatedly re-categorized, too. I get frustrated and at times feel that it is a time sink with no end in sight. I really do think a bunch of sociopaths try to control what happens on Commons. I get more pissed off on Commons than I do on Wikipedia, which is bizarre. I actually *fear* the commons-l list, and I always fear that I'll have my account banned again because of another stupid mistake which I blame on the double-speak known as Commons documentation. Commons is broken, and I really hope Wikimedia Foundation and others realize that something has to change. It's as if people are afraid of Commons, afraid of the gang of users who have commandeered control within it, and the majority of people who wish to utilize it for what it is have to often tread lightly for risk of screwing something up or pissing some nut job anti-censorship control freak who thinks bad art and women getting off with toothbrushes are educational materials. People are freaking out over the idea of an imagine filter. I mean come on..why?? It's going to be something each user (if I'm correct) can control, no one is being *forced* to use it. It's as if these Commons users are afraid of being dominated. Something has to change if this website is going to get healthy. That is the reason that I wrote to the mailing list to discuss the matter as an community issue. I have come to believe that is rooted in the culture values of the WMF editors who add loads of these images to commons. Thank goodness we have this mailing list. And I know I come off like a total nut when complaining about Commons, but, I'm getting sick and tired of it. I'm sick and tired of fighting about categories, educational material definitions, and double standards. In a bit of a trollish mood, if you couldn't tell, Sarah We can't walk away from the issue because it is too important. We need to discuss it so that we can better understand why that we are having trouble addressing the issue in a way that is promotes an inclusive editing environment. Sydney On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sarah, The principle of least surprise is roughly the following: People who go to a category/gallery/encyclopedia-article expecting something (shoes) should not be surprised by something they may find offensive (naked women wearing shoes). One way to ensure this is to make clearly labelled subcategories for the potentially offensive material. In this case, I made a subcategory: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes and within that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes so everyone who visits that category knows exactly what they're going to see in advance. Regarding your Flickr question: Whether the account is deleted or not doesn't usually change whether or not the picture is in scope. But deleted accounts do make the copyright status more questionable. At the time of upload, the bot would check that the license is correct, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the Flickr user is uploading copyright violations to their Flickr account (Flickrwashing). If there are other likely signs of copyright violation, I would nominate for deletion (as I did for the other image mentioned in this thread http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Young_girl_with_see-through_tops_and_shorts.jpg). When the account is still active, you can also check the rest of the Flickr user's contributions to get a good sense of whether they are really the author of the photos they're uploading. Snapshots aren't necessarily out of scope just because they're snapshots, they're sometimes realistically useful for an educational purpose. Toby On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Toby - Sorry to be a n00b but, can you explain what you mean by refactoring this category according to the principle of least surprise? For anyone else - if you find an image that has been uploaded by a Flickr bot, and the Flickr account has been deleted what do you do? I notice a large portion of images like this are often snapshot uneducational photos (here is an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labace_%2824%29.jpg) I was going to nominate it for just being out of scope because Commons is not a repository for snapshots. ;) Asking questions like this on Commons-L isn't very pleasant, so thanks for helping! Thanks, Sarah On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: I've made a start on refactoring this category according to the principle of least
