LOL, at least he realizes I'm on a vendetta against crappy profile personal photos too:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bio_picture.jpg The more people speak out against crap on Commons the more our voices will be heard. ;) On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks for the support SJ. > > Does anyone know if there is a template for this? > > It's this that they claim allow images like that to stay on Commons: > > > http://www.crucialthought.com/2009/03/03/creative-commons-licenses-cannot-be-revoked/ > > Someone else has jumped in and is arguing on some of this content shouldn't > be here. > > ...fighting the good fight, > > Sarah > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would tackle this at the level of deletion templates. >> >> Flickrwashing is a known widespread source of copyvios. >> 1. There should be a template specifically for that class of deletion. >> 2. This should be added as a new reason for deletion to the >> appropriate policy page. >> >> A Flickr-imported image whose original uploader has had their account >> removed, and which has no other indication of copyright status, should >> be eligible for deletion. This can be counterweighted by >> * significant educational value, e.g., active use (as the best >> available image) in multiple articles >> * significant reason to believe the image was originally posted to >> Flickr by its author [based on metadata or descriptions on the Flickr >> account at the time of import, or other online sleuthing] >> >> If either of these is true, we can take a risk and wait for a takedown >> notice. But we should be as harsh on getting copyright confirmation >> for these images as we are for images obviously uploaded by their >> creator or someone who knows the creator, who fail to choose the right >> license template. >> >> SJ >> >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> 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.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> 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:PEOPLE applies, >> 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.com> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Category:High-heeled shoes is an excellent example of the current >> >>>>>> problem WMF projects are having with creating and disseminating >> content that >> >>>>>> is unbiased. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> This category is different that most all the other categories about >> >>>>>> footwear because it contains many images that are not primarily >> examples of >> >>>>>> high-heeled shoes. Most other categories about footwear contain >> mostly >> >>>>>> images of shoes or the lower leg(s) with a shoe or shoes. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The number of images in Category:High-heeled shoes is higher than >> most >> >>>>>> categories about footwear. Approximately one- third of the images >> are of >> >>>>>> full body shots of attractive females who are wearing high heeled >> shoes, and >> >>>>>> a significant number of them are nude or posed in sexually >> provocative >> >>>>>> positions. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> There are random women who are wearing shoes and are mixed in with >> the >> >>>>>> porn-stars and strip-tease dancers. These women are being >> objectified and >> >>>>>> sexualized without their consent because of the way the the images >> are >> >>>>>> displayed in the category. See Wikipedia article on Sexualization >> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization for a description of >> the term. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> In each language that has Wikipedia articles about high-heeled >> shoes, >> >>>>>> the content is about a type of footwear, so the links in the >> articles that >> >>>>>> lead to commons are directing people to nudity or sexual content >> that they >> >>>>>> would not anticipate. There are other problems with some of the >> images, >> >>>>>> including unclear consent for the image to be uploaded by the >> subject of the >> >>>>>> image. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I see this category as a concrete example of systemic bias coming >> from >> >>>>>> having a male dominated editing community. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Leather boots is only other category that I found that also has a >> >>>>>> large number of images of people. It also contain a >> disproportionate number >> >>>>>> of images of women who are nude or in sexually provocative poses. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I think that it is important to continue to talk about these issues >> in >> >>>>>> the hope that more people with became educated about the problems >> with with >> >>>>>> our current methods to collect, categorize, and disseminate >> content. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Sydney Poore >> >>>>>> User:FloNight >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> 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 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 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 >> 529 4266 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > > -- > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia > Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org> > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American > Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch> > and > Sarah Stierch Consulting > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.* > ------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.sarahstierch.com/ > > -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<http://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
