[Gendergap] Make love, not porn

[Sarah Stierch]

http://openvideoconference.org/2011/09/cindy-gallop-make-love-not-porn/

Shared with me by JeremyB who saw her speak over the weekend.

And if you don't want to watch or read, check out her website - Make Love
Not Porn - which has users choose porn world or real world in response to
sexual scenarios. It's quite fun...and yeah, some people do think in the
ways of "porn world" which gives you that lightbulb moment..especially
if you've had interactions with those types.

I do believe that Commons has great representation of people from around the
world who have been desensitized to sexuality and/or violence.

Sarah

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Sarah Stierch]

>
> Use by doctors of Wikipedia is massive with 50% using it at least
> occasionally and 5% editing.
>
>

If that's a fact...then just another area of outreach we need to tap into!

-Sarah





-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Fred Bauder]

> Sydney -
>
> I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Sue is referring to best practices
> in
> regards to medical encyclopedia entries...and the type of images, where
> they
> are placed in articles, and such?
>
> I do think it'd be GREAT to have the input of medical professionals. I'm
> starting to notice that the majority of people who participate in medical
> topics RARELY actually deal with the subject at hand in a professional
> environment (i.e. I'd love to meet the gyno or nurse who is writing the
> vagina article..)
>
> Just like we need museums, women, and students...we need doctors and
> medical
> professionals. Nursing school outreach anyone? :)
>
> -Sarah

Use by doctors of Wikipedia is massive with 50% using it at least
occasionally and 5% editing.

Fred


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

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Nathan]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> In response to Sydney's post..
>
> Having worked in the photography industry (and been forced in front of a
> camera a few times in my day..) as a consultant and a make-up artist (10
> years in that industry) I've written, signed, had others sign, and dealt
> with model release forms a million times over. Here is a nice standard break
> down of that from the NYIP:
>
> http://www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/model-release.html
>
> If we require permission for use via OTRS, I don't know why we can't have
> "model release" be incorporated sexual/nude photography, modeling
> photography, studio photography. Materials used for educational purposes, as
> Commons is supposed to be, this shouldn't be too hard. I haven't thought too
> hard about it yet, but, it is possible.
>
>
I've been advocating for this for several years (check the archives of
Foundation-l), but there's never been very much support - and none at all on
Commons. Even the Board resolution only requires an "affirmation" from the
uploader that the subject gave consent.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Sarah Stierch]

Sydney -

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Sue is referring to best practices in
regards to medical encyclopedia entries...and the type of images, where they
are placed in articles, and such?

I do think it'd be GREAT to have the input of medical professionals. I'm
starting to notice that the majority of people who participate in medical
topics RARELY actually deal with the subject at hand in a professional
environment (i.e. I'd love to meet the gyno or nurse who is writing the
vagina article..)

Just like we need museums, women, and students...we need doctors and medical
professionals. Nursing school outreach anyone? :)

-Sarah

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that if we had access to the kinds of best practices or
>> guiding principles used in the medical profession, that might give us
>> some guidance for how to select images that are optimally neutral for
>> educational purposes. Because as your note implies, that expertise
>> does already exist.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sue
>>
>
> Sue,
>
> Not exactly what you were asking about but related.
>
> These are some policy statements about consent from patients for the use of
> their image in a medical publication.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112855/
>
> http://www.acmg.net/resources/policies/pol-020.pdf
>
> Commons now does not require consent for images of people that are not
> identifiable. This does not meet the newer standards adopted by medical
> groups. This is particulary concerning since our license encourages reuse.
> We are lowering the standard for obtaining medical images and encouraging
> other people to do so too.
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[aude]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> This is a NSFW photo
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg
>
> Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.
>
> An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid reason
> for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It has
> been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or
> "obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason).
>
> I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any project
> since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor
> description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an
> "educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]]
> article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow
> drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot..
> come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality
> photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom
> for the project..if it's that in demand.
> 
>

I'd be concerned about this user's track record of uploads, this the only
one not deleted:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jonghap

Presumably if there is/was File:Korean Vulva3.jpg and File:Korean
Vulva2.jpg, then there was File:Korean Vulva1.jpg which is gone now.

On copyright issues alone, I am concerned about this image, as well as
regarding consent, given the private location of the photo.

Cheers,
Katie

Cheers,
Katie



>
> I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/
>
> Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge
> something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong? Regardless
> of the subject, I don't understand why the admin would declare the peoples
> reasons in valid based on my knowledge of the Commons policies...: "Commons
> is not a porn site", "private location, lack of model release" etc...
>
> (And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original
> rager when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels"
> category..)...so no need to reprimand meI've curbed my 'tude!)
>
> Any help would be great,
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia 
> Foundation
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American 
> Art
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
President, Wiki Society of Washington, DC Inc.
http://wikidc.org
@wikidc / @wikimania2012
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Sydney Poore]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Sue Gardner  wrote:

> It seems to me that if we had access to the kinds of best practices or
> guiding principles used in the medical profession, that might give us
> some guidance for how to select images that are optimally neutral for
> educational purposes. Because as your note implies, that expertise
> does already exist.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>

Sue,

Not exactly what you were asking about but related.

These are some policy statements about consent from patients for the use of
their image in a medical publication.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112855/

http://www.acmg.net/resources/policies/pol-020.pdf

Commons now does not require consent for images of people that are not
identifiable. This does not meet the newer standards adopted by medical
groups. This is particulary concerning since our license encourages reuse.
We are lowering the standard for obtaining medical images and encouraging
other people to do so too.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sarah Stierch]

In response to Sydney's post..

Having worked in the photography industry (and been forced in front of a
camera a few times in my day..) as a consultant and a make-up artist (10
years in that industry) I've written, signed, had others sign, and dealt
with model release forms a million times over. Here is a nice standard break
down of that from the NYIP:

http://www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/model-release.html

If we require permission for use via OTRS, I don't know why we can't have
"model release" be incorporated sexual/nude photography, modeling
photography, studio photography. Materials used for educational purposes, as
Commons is supposed to be, this shouldn't be too hard. I haven't thought too
hard about it yet, but, it is possible.

There of course comes the question of grandfathering in content, and Flickr.
The strange thing about all this creative commons stuff on Flickr - is that
most people *don't* release photographs of their friends, naked partners, or
themselves to be used freely by the world CC-By-A/SA.  So, it's always
really hard for me to trust Flickr accounts where people are releasing their
content for free use of naked people without some type of quality release
content or statements on their page. I don't even release photographs of my
friends via CCBYA (and if I would, I'd have permission), except Wikimedia
related events and even then I have to ask people (generally) if it's okay
if I post their photo.

There is also the idea of a warning that is more amplified. One could ask
the uploader if it's questionable content they're uploading (or perhaps we
can have some fancy Commons thing that "scans" the image for certain body
parties, styles or actions) to make sure they really want to do that. We've
had two "teenagers" (a 13 an 14 year old) recently request photographs of
their lower-half in there mere underwear be removed from Commons. These
presumed children uploaded photos of themselves, probably to be sexy and
voyeuristic (like so many of us in the digital age growing up have explored)
and then went "OH GOD NOO" a few days later.

The age is bad enough, but...plenty of people go "Ok please delete my crotch
from Commons" often enough.

This brainstorm features:


   - Model release form combined with OTRS
   - Commons nekkid parts sensor (i.e. like face recognition but for boobs,
   penises, vaginas, doggie style, whatever)
   - Alert for uploaders with sexual content making sure they want to do it
   - And I'll throw in a review of Flickr policy.

Sarah



On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:

> See the standard for medical images from the American Medical College of
> Genetics
>
> http://www.acmg.net/resources/policies/pol-020.pdf
>
> I worked with people with high risk pregnancy and sometimes we took
> pictures of the baby if it had a genetic disorder. But we always got consent
> first.
>
> Sydney
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:
>
>> I left Yann a message on his talk page asking him to reconsider.
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yann#Korean_Vulva
>>
>> I sincerely hope that she did give consent and knows that it is on
>> Commons. Otherwise we are exploiting her.
>>
>> I disagree that the person is not recognizable. It would be very unethical
>> to upload this image without this person's consent. True exploitation of the
>> person.
>>
>> I feel very strong about this point because of the my knowledge of past
>> exploitation of people in medical images in textbooks and medical journals,
>> some of them nude. It was absolutely wrong when it was done in the name of
>> education and it is wrong for us to do it now.
>>
>> Sydney Poore
>> User:FloNight
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a NSFW photo
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg
>>>
>>> Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.
>>>
>>> An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid
>>> reason for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It
>>> has been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or
>>> "obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason).
>>>
>>> I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any
>>> project since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor
>>> description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an
>>> "educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]]
>>> article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow
>>> drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot..
>>> come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality
>>> photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom
>>> for the project..if it's that in demand.
>>> 
>>

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sarah Stierch]

This FloNight(Sydney), and Fred, for your thoughts.

Fred, when I posted the original deletion request it was based on Commons
deletion policies - uneducational, quality, orphaning, personal photo, and
unnecessary nudity (i.e. tasteless nude shot that the guy "claims" he took
of this woman). How can we even trust that the uploader didn't take it from
an online personals website, craigslist, or perhaps an email from a dating
website - who knows. (Slippery slope..OoooOOOooh!!!)

Policy does need to be reexamined. I think Pete brought this up, and we've
talked a bit about it. I do think that Commons has policies changes that
need to be looked at - and I wholeheartedly believe this photo, and many
others, qualify even under the current Commons policies, but I am "viewing
them in my own way" just like those who support keeping those images view
them their own way.

One thing Wikimedia as a whole *suffers* from is no "solidity" when it comes
to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken,
changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem.

Thanks Sydney for bringing it up with the admin. I have to admit, Commons
does make me anxious (I'm so paranoid about backlash and harassment from
Commons, after the last shit storm that I started that was forwarded to the
Commons-L list) so I appreciate you speaking up about it!

Sarah
who really needs to stop letting a bunch of dudes behind computers piss her
off so much. ;)


On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:

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


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Fou

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sydney Poore]

See the standard for medical images from the American Medical College of
Genetics

http://www.acmg.net/resources/policies/pol-020.pdf

I worked with people with high risk pregnancy and sometimes we took pictures
of the baby if it had a genetic disorder. But we always got consent first.

Sydney

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:

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

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sydney Poore]

I left Yann a message on his talk page asking him to reconsider.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yann#Korean_Vulva

I sincerely hope that she did give consent and knows that it is on Commons.
Otherwise we are exploiting her.

I disagree that the person is not recognizable. It would be very unethical
to upload this image without this person's consent. True exploitation of the
person.

I feel very strong about this point because of the my knowledge of past
exploitation of people in medical images in textbooks and medical journals,
some of them nude. It was absolutely wrong when it was done in the name of
education and it is wrong for us to do it now.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight



On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> This is a NSFW photo
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg
>
> Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.
>
> An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid reason
> for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It has
> been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or
> "obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason).
>
> I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any project
> since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor
> description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an
> "educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]]
> article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow
> drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot..
> come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality
> photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom
> for the project..if it's that in demand.
> 
>
> I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/
>
> Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge
> something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong? Regardless
> of the subject, I don't understand why the admin would declare the peoples
> reasons in valid based on my knowledge of the Commons policies...: "Commons
> is not a porn site", "private location, lack of model release" etc...
>
> (And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original
> rager when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels"
> category..)...so no need to reprimand meI've curbed my 'tude!)
>
> Any help would be great,
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia 
> Foundation
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American 
> Art
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Fred Bauder]

> This is a NSFW photo
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg
>
> Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.
>
> An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid
> reason
> for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable."

> Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge
> something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong?
> Any help would be great,
>
> Sarah

He is correct that a proposal to do something must cite a valid reason,
as must comments if they are to be considered when closing a matter.

An image where the person is not identifiable doesn't require their
permission. In that he is correct.

I agree it is a particularly poor image that shows nearly nothing of
educational value. However the reason you cite, pornographic, does not
seem to apply; she is just drying her hair. He does admit "the amount of
naked women on Commons is a bit ridiculous"

Perhaps that issue should be addressed as a policy discussion.

Fred


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

Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sarah]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 14:53, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> (And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original rager
> when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels" category..)...so no
> need to reprimand meI've curbed my 'tude!)

I love your 'tude. Don't let them kill it. :)

Sarah

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

[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sarah Stierch]

This is a NSFW photo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg

Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.

An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid reason
for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It has
been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or
"obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason).

I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any project
since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor
description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an
"educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]]
article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow
drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot..
come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality
photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom
for the project..if it's that in demand.


I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/

Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge
something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong? Regardless
of the subject, I don't understand why the admin would declare the peoples
reasons in valid based on my knowledge of the Commons policies...: "Commons
is not a porn site", "private location, lack of model release" etc...

(And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original rager
when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels" category..)...so no
need to reprimand meI've curbed my 'tude!)

Any help would be great,

Sarah

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap