On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip> Erik said,
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with
> permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), *it's still desirable
> to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons*,
> because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto
> is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and
> potentially used on Wikipedia.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> <snip> Erik's interpretation, which I believe reflects the intent of the
> board resolution.
>
We need to be careful here. Does Erik's statement of what is *desirable* (the
word he used) truly read to you as an *interpretation* of the resolution? I
think not. In fact, Erik has used similar language ("consent to be
photographed") on this very list. Speaking of what is desirable is a very
different thing than interpreting a resolution.
Meanwhile, we still have the issue that the resolution does not address
what is being consented to. It's plain English, and it's simply not stated.
Trying to interpret something that is simply not there doesn't seem like a
good use of our time.
But pushing to develop and pass a more helpfully-worded resolution does.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
