I think we need to be clearer about who is the audience here. It seems
to be directed at the customer, rather than at Wikimedians, but then
some of the text is unnecessarily detailed and distracting. We have to
assume that most people are not actually reading pages like this for
comprehension,
Update, and a request:
The discussion thread John started has been very active, with I think about
30 posts from a wide variety of customer service (OTRS) volunteers.
Summary:
* Many people agree that there is an important concern about readers who
find personal/traumatic content about themselves
I applied for Commons OTRS today...
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Sep 12, 2011, at 5:45 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>> It seems like we have strong consensus that a separate "customer su
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> It seems like we have strong consensus that a separate "customer support
> queue", run by and for women, would be a good idea. I certainly think so!
>
> Who here is active on OTRS? I'm on it, and on the email list, but I'm not
> active there
It seems like we have strong consensus that a separate "customer support
queue", run by and for women, would be a good idea. I certainly think so!
Who here is active on OTRS? I'm on it, and on the email list, but I'm not
active there. It might be best for somebody float the idea over there, see
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>..
>> Hi Fred, if it were an entirely separate address it would work, an
>> email address that is only ever read by women volunteers.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>
> That is the way we need to go with perhaps a panel of specialized OTRS
> volunteers, for thi
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 03:14, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 22:22, John Vandenberg
>>> wrote:
As Sarah Stierch points out, our images of sexuality and reproduction
are crap, broadly speaking, and our paperwork/processes are
self-evidently not good for attracting h
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 03:14, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 22:22, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> As Sarah Stierch points out, our images of sexuality and reproduction
>>> are crap, broadly speaking, and our paperwork/processes are
>>> self-evidently not good for attracting high qualit
Idea:
1. We design a wiki page like a call for artists for selected topics that we
notice need quality images.
2. People who have connections to professional photographers (like me..I'm a
consultant and I one of my services is strategic plans for private sector
artists and studios, including half
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 22:22, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> As Sarah Stierch points out, our images of sexuality and reproduction
>> are crap, broadly speaking, and our paperwork/processes are
>> self-evidently not good for attracting high quality photographs. What
>> processes should we put in pla
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Several women, including on WikiProject Feminism on the English
>> Wikipedia, have recently expressed concern about the number of
>> photographs of women's body parts that Wikimedia hosts, particularly
>> regarding the issue of permission.
>>
>
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
> I would like to throw this back in a positive direction. The task of
> deleting poor quality photographs (and metadata/provenance/paperwork
> is part of quality) is made much easier if we have good quality
> photographs of the same topi
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 22:22, John Vandenberg wrote:
> As Sarah Stierch points out, our images of sexuality and reproduction
> are crap, broadly speaking, and our paperwork/processes are
> self-evidently not good for attracting high quality photographs. What
> processes should we put in place to
If someone sees an image of themself which they want removed, they can
1. email OTRS.
whether the request is received by a volunteer and/or anonymous person
shouldn't matter. The OTRS policies do matter, esp. the privacy
policy.
For added privacy, they should email oversight-en-wp or the common
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 21:33, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> I also think (after working in the fashion and photography private sector
> for almost 10 years before non-profits) that model releases are as important
> as OTRS copyright releases when it comes to "sexual" content on Wikipedia.
> Whether nude
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 21:00, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The matter is discussed at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>
> Fred
Thanks for the link, Fred.
It seems that page deals only with image
Sarah, (and a rant, of course)
I contacted WMF legal counsel about this, and they responded with the legal
stance and related content to at least "child pornography" and Henrietta has
put together this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_pornography_policy_and_laws-
based on that con
> Several women, including on WikiProject Feminism on the English
> Wikipedia, have recently expressed concern about the number of
> photographs of women's body parts that Wikimedia hosts, particularly
> regarding the issue of permission.
>
> It's far from clear in many cases that the women have gi
Several women, including on WikiProject Feminism on the English
Wikipedia, have recently expressed concern about the number of
photographs of women's body parts that Wikimedia hosts, particularly
regarding the issue of permission.
It's far from clear in many cases that the women have given consent
19 matches
Mail list logo
