Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: 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. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg 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 Yes, the context is being ignored, particularly the choice of name for the image, transmogrifying an innocent image of a nude woman into an oriental sex image. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.netwrote: On 12/09/2011 02:43, Sarah Stierch wrote: 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. Absolutely. I think in this case the real troublemaker is the admin, and the original poster is almost an innocent boy trying to post something he deems erotic or daring. By the admin's behaviour we see that the original poster is almost encouraged to behave like a bad little boy. It is obvious that a photo of the vulva should show the vulva. If the admin doesn't understand that then he is hopeless and must go back to highschool for several years. He is certainly not scientifically literate enough to hold a position on Wikipedia. I agree that this image had many problems and keeping it does not really make sense. That is the reason that I asked the admin to review his decision. You don't have to discuss with an admin who doesn't understand that a photo of an organ must show the organ. You don't have to discuss with an admin who doesn't understand that photos of anatomy should be as devoid of erotic content as possible. Democracy should not go that far as to negociate with total incompetence. Either this admin is really stupid, and should never have made it to his position in WP, or he is being perverse with the vulva page. If find it very difficult to believe that a person literate enough to make it to the position of admin on WP would be illiterate enough to not understand that a photo named vulva in the vulva page should show a vulva, and should avoid evocation of private life promiscuity. I know this administrators work on several projects, and I don't think that is an accurate description of his work in general. He regularly closes deletion discussions, and will close them for deletion about sexual content as he did in some of the other ones put up for deletion recently. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:April_after_!st_act.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hairpenis.jpg The reason that I see the issue with controversial content as a problem of systemic biasis that is that it has taken hold of WMF projects in general. If you look at the full body of his work, this admin truly is trying to follow policy and the customs of Commons and WMF projects in general. IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have better policy to work with. And we need a broader group of people commenting in all deletion discussions so that we get a more globally representative view of what is appropriate for Commons to have on site. Sydney ___ 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?
No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the appropriate permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has not obvious signs of being a copyright violation. People have been in disagreement about whether images that are controversial content should be be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Some people say that we are be biased if we require a higher level of scrutiny for images of naked people. I disagree, but think that we really need to have a higher level of scrutiny for all images with identifiable people. By requiring model consent, we would solve a large part of the problems with the images on Commons. Sydney Poore On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:17, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net wrote: IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have better policy to work with. Do we have specific Commons policies on voyeurism and invasion of privacy? 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] So this is how Commons works?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.netwrote: On 12/09/2011 12:18, Sydney Poore wrote: If you look at the full body of his work, this admin truly is trying to follow policy and the customs of Commons and WMF projects in general. Well I might have been too quick in judging him, and besides idiocy or perversion the reason of his behaviour might have been a complete lack of attention. To the point that he didn't even have a look at the photo, because if he did and still protected the photo, then I am back at the idiocy or perversity hypothesis. Because, quite frankly, voluntary or not, exceptional or not, what he has done here is an insult to plain common sense, and a clear direct deterioration of WP content. From the scientific point of view it is below the required level to even begin a discussion. Imagine the page for Finger, should we even take time to discuss the propriety of a photo showing the forearm without the fingers ? What would we think of an admin who would protect a photo of the forearm without the fingers on the Finger page, after having been duly pointed to the obvious mistake by a user ? Don't you think the user with a normal self-respect would be right to no bother to come any longer on Wikipedia ? If you add the Asian-erotic content to that, you realize that the photo was totally inappropriate on so many levels that the problem doesn't lie in the photo anymore but on the admin. IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have better policy to work with. And we need a broader group of people commenting in all deletion discussions so that we get a more globally representative view of what is appropriate for Commons to have on site. Yes but as Sarah Stierch wrote today : 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. Adding rules or adding policies or adding commentators doesn't work if the admins don't show the adequate level of literacy, or use their position to manipulate the rules at their convenience. In his Discussion lock comment Yann says Person is not recognizable. That is typical of illiteracy and bad faith. You add a right detail to justify an otherwise totally wrong and very obviously wrong decision. That is totally twisting the rules. As a result we now have a scientifically totally irrelevant and plainly domestic-erotic photo on WP, which is explicitly protected by WP. The mistake is so obvious that no further rules will work if admins don't show a normal intention to respect the rules. Re-read the discussion page. Is it normal that Sarah Stierch (Missvain) had to take time to write the obvious in detail, and that she was not followed eventually ? This is not fair, no grown-up literate person should be treated like that. Even if it is involuntary, Yann's decision is so wrong and so rude it should seriously put in doubt his position as an admin. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg#File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg_3 He reconsidered and deleted the image. Approaching an admin to reconsider is always okay. They close dozens of deletion discussions and will sometimes get something wrong. This is a good outcome. Sydney Poore http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpgdiff=0oldid=59292511 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
WMF projects should be a leader in assuring that people's human rights are enforced. Right now WMF policies do not reflect best practices. But the WMF Board and staff are moving in the right direction. The problem is that the a large part of the community holds the idea of free speak as a higher value than protecting the rights of people who might be harmed. The solution is more discussion where people can be educated about all the ramifications of hosting controversial content. And also bringing more people into the community who hold a more moderate view about the importance of free speech, and who will be better able to make more balanced decisions when we must weigh all the differing ideals and ethical considerations. There are some essays around, I think. Read one recently about hosting images of people. Another one would be good on the topic of voyeurism. Sydney On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder whether it would be worth developing a guideline, or just writing an essay about it on Commons. Trouble is, I know so little about how the Commons works -- I don't even know how to find their list of policies. My thinking is that voyeurism is increasingly becoming a criminal offence, and an essay about it might help to identify the kinds of images we should be wary of uploading. For example, in the UK, a person commits a criminal offence if: (a) he records another person (B) doing a private act, (b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and (c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67 The problem with all of this on Wikimedia is the anonymity factor. People could say I am the model and I hereby give consent. I don't know how we get round that. Sarah On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:45, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the appropriate permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has not obvious signs of being a copyright violation. People have been in disagreement about whether images that are controversial content should be be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Some people say that we are be biased if we require a higher level of scrutiny for images of naked people. I disagree, but think that we really need to have a higher level of scrutiny for all images with identifiable people. By requiring model consent, we would solve a large part of the problems with the images on Commons. Sydney Poore ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:52, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net He reconsidered and deleted the image. Approaching an admin to reconsider is always okay. They close dozens of deletion discussions and will sometimes get something wrong. This is a good outcome. Sydney Poore Thanks for asking him to reconsider. It would be worth identifying a set of Commons admins who are used to dealing with these issues -- privacy concerns, lack of model consent, possible voyeurism. Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 06:50, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Three more things that I want to state clearly based on these conversations: Commons bases identifiably on the face of an individual. While in many situations, that maybe the only way to identify an individual, when it comes to nudity, etc, there is more to identify than just a face. Any sexually active person can often remember specific features etc. of current and past lovers (birth marks, hair patterns, piercings, whatever), porn star they watch, models they like (I can pick out Bettie Page's sucked in stomach, Tempest Storm's legendary moneymakers and my favorite Suicide Girls tattooed back from a mile away without heads..) etc. As SlimVirgin stated - the model is identifiable to those who know her. (And yes, slippery slope again..) However, I really doubt that we'd have much weight with this argument, but, perhaps I'm wrong in that. We must stress that objectification goes beyond women on Commons. Men are objectified, however, generally in a different manner by self-imposed objectification - uploading photographs of their own body parts and self-indulgent photographs, while it appears others upload images of women on their behalf. Objectification of culture is a major problem, especially when it comes to Asian women. Whether it's anime pornography (which we have plenty of and people argue that it's educational because of the tools or techniques used to create it) or photographs of Korean vulvas which feature hot Korean girls (or whatever). I notice there is a similar situation with Eastern/Eurasian women as well. Something has to change - while these women might not be active on Commons, someone has to have a voice for them. The expertise about what it means for a photograph to identify a person is out there, so it's just a question of accessing it. In journalism, when a court orders a publication ban on identifying someone, you can't argue that your description of them did not identify them to the general reader. If you write about them in a way that allows their local circle to recognize them that's often sufficient to trigger contempt of court proceedings. This Commons guideline -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT -- discusses what's meant by private place, but doesn't say how the law defines identifiable. Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 14:53, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
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?
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 sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: 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. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg 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 Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch 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?
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 sydney.po...@gmail.comwrote: 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 sydney.po...@gmail.comwrote: 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 sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: 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. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/ Were the reasons we
Re: [Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: 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. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg 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 Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch 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] So this is how Commons works?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: 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
