Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high that it requires OTRS in a straightforward case like this.
It seems to me the board resolution covers this case, but was disregarded. I'm curious to hear other perspectives. -Pete On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken > in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not > give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a > no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of > the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So > a "good outcome" to my mind would have been asking the person to verify > that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the > image. "In scope", which is the content of the actual close there, is > pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons > adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to > actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue. > > Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation > of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it > doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's > featured - we should not be hosting it. > > -Fluff > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board >> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a >> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a >> (presumably) private setting in a library: >> >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg >> >> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did >> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that >> compelling enough. >> >> What would be a good outcome in this case? >> >> And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way >> that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones? >> That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't >> getting us closer to an answer. >> >> Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
