Here's something we might do though. Addition of any image which violates anyone's privacy to any article can be suppressed on the English Wikipedia. Using this policy: "Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information."
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight That would not resolve the situation on Commons, but would render the image useless and superfluous. Fred > --- On Mon, 12/9/11, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > 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. > And rightly so. After all, the idea -- > -- that people might feel aggrieved if a picture of them naked, or giving > a blowjob, is hosted on Commons for global reuse, without their consent, > -- that their strength of feeling might be different if the matter > concerned a picture showing them clothed, walking down the street > -- and that the Foundation should bear that difference in strength of > feeling in mind, by requiring more solid consent for the former type of > image, > is really outré, isn't it. :)) > > Andreas > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
