On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the > idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here. > > Cheers, > > Russavia The message you posted at the DR, ---o0o--- *Comment* This nomination is a somewhat pointish trolling nomination as noted here<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003644.html> . *There is NO evidence of this being revenge porn.* The only suggestion of such is here on the gendergap mailing list<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003623.html> by User:Jayen466 <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466> (so take anything from that source with a grain of salt). Now, let's look at these unfounded comments on this being "revenge porn"; it does not add up; it makes for nice emotional fallacy, but not much else. If one looks at the sets <http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoguy412001/sets/> of photos taken by the photographer are obviously as part of their amateur photography. All EXIF data checks out (same camera being used), and Google and Tineye searches reveal nothing of concern. It is somewhat clear say from this set<http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoguy412001/sets/72157629460674458/> (and other sets) that the photos are part of an amateur photoshoot. The consent issue is easily rectified by contacting the photographer and asking if they have consent to publish the photos...I am sure someone will do so. russavia<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Russavia> (talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia>) 03:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50 ---o0o--- is based on a misunderstanding of what I said in the linked post. The point I made there about revenge porn was in response to earlier comments by Pete Forsyth and concerned images of women who are not identifiable (my point being that for revenge porn to "work", it is not necessary for the woman's face to be shown). It did not pertain to these images, in which the women clearly *are* identifiable. I believe these images should be deleted if there is no evidence that the models are aware of and have consented to their upload to Wikimedia sites. There is no evidence that they have consented to their upload to Flickr either, of course. The original categories applied by the pseudonymous uploader on Wikimedia Commons ("Big Titts", "Titts", "Naked" etc.) suggest a purely exploitative mindset. A difference between Flickr and Wikimedia that comes into play here is that on Flickr, the images are visible only to users who have signed into a Flickr account whose preferences are set to viewing adult images, restricting their audience to Flickr's adult images community, whereas on Wikimedia, they are visible to all and sundry.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
