Maggie Dennis <mden...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have > (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of > harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community > Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of the > individuals have been doctored to be sexualized and cases where existing > pornographic pictures that were not the individual were selected and > misattributed as being them. I have personally been involved in complaints > of this happening to both men and women.
> […] That was not asked and reported by the Harassment Survey, though. Question #6 as per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015/Questions was: | How many times have you experienced incidents like the ones | described below while working on any of the Wikimedia | projects? | […] | - Sexually explicit or sexualised photos of me have been | published without my consent | […] Even subsuming the second alternative as "revenge porn" is very problematic as in the public perception and that of the courts it is a breach of the implicit confidentiality under which (real) images were originally produced. Tim _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>