I'm both a long-time admin on Commons and an OTRS volunteer. I've been wanting to chime in on this thread, but haven't really had the time. I'm worried though that I'm about to see history repeat itself, so I want to quickly share a few thoughts...
First, the issue of consent on Commons has been passionately debates for years, and has a long and tortured history. Before proposing anything, please make yourself familiar with the previous discussions and their outcomes. Most notably the discussions surrounding these pages: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity The point I can't emphasize enough is that if you put forward any proposal on Commons that implies there is anything possibly problematic about sexual or nude images in any way, you will be completely shut down. The only way you have any chance to shape the policies and guidelines on Commons is if you approach the problem from a sex/nudity-agnostic point of view. Here's a good example of what NOT to do: I think a general statement that permission of the subject is desirable / necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) If the horse was beyond dead in January 2009, imagine where it is now. That said, there is still lots of room for improvement. In particular... Commons already requires consent for photos of identifiable people in private spaces. In addition, many countries require consent even for public spaces. (Take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons#Country_specific_consent_requirements.) The way this requirement works, however, is completely passive and reactive - there is no impetus to proactively assert consent, only to assert it when an image is challenged. This is a very inefficient system. There are no templates or categories or anything to deal with consent on Commons (apart from Template:Consent which is tied up with the tortured history of Commons:Sexual_content and can't be used currently). I don't think it would be incredibly controversial to introduce a very simple consent template that was specifically tailored to the existing policies and laws. This would make things easier for Commons reusers, professional photographers who use model releases, and admins who have to constantly deal with these issues. In short, it would be a win for everyone and it would introduce the idea of thinking proactively about consent on Commons in a way that isn't threatening to people who are concerned about censorship. As soon as I have some free time, I'll whip up such a template and throw it into the water. It'll be interesting to see how it is received. Ryan Kaldari _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
