Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I have said before, I am happy to work with you or anyone on drafting a better policy. (I realize you offered a two word edit, but in my view this is not a substantive effort to engage with the problem, so it doesn't merit much pursuit. Still, I appreciate your making that effort.) The three-word edit changing subject consent for the use of such media to subject consent for the use of such media *in Wikimedia Commons* is significant. Let me explain why. There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether *assumed * consent to an upload to Flickr's adult section implies consent to an upload to Wikimedia Commons or not. Present practice in Commons is that if an adult image is present on Flickr under a free licence, then it is fine to upload it to Commons, without making any effort to ascertain whether the model and the Flickr uploader are happy for the image to be on Wikimedia Commons. Neither the model nor the Flickr uploader are notified of the Commons upload. A number of people have been saying that before an adult image is uploaded to Commons, models should be asked whether they agree specifically to an upload to Commons, as the presence of their adult image on Commons has very different implications than the presence of such an image in Flickr's restricted section. To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer, then they will help to bring Commons practice in line with the intent of the board resolution. That is all for the good, is it not? I am sure further improvements to the wording of the board resolution can be made. But if this change alone makes that part of the intent clearer, then why wait? Of course, if we want the scraping of adult images from Flickr to continue, without verification of consent, then we can just sit on our hands. And talk and talk until everybody is tired of the discussion and wants to talk about something else, leaving everything exactly as it was. You know what other sites are riddled with copyright violations? YouTube, Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not perfect, but they are an asset. YouTube and Flickr would strongly disagree with that assertion. (They have staff.) Indeed, aren't they? Try clicking the Random file button in the lefthand nav, and see how long it takes you to get to some kind of nudity or sexuality etc. I've done so hundreds of times in the last year or two, and have yet to find a file that struck me as potentially offensive. If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names, according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly faster than the Wikimedia response. The cucumber ladies still have their pictures on Commons, even though the Flickr account the images were scraped from has long been deleted: (SFW:) http://www.flickr.com/photos/phoenixontherise/6092639951/ The image pages concerned show no evidence that consent was ever asked for. All they say is this: This image, originally posted to *Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr *, was reviewed on September 11, 2011 by the administratorhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:A or reviewer http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review *File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:File_Upload_Bot_(Magnus_Manske) *, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date. (NSFW:) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dede_Cucumber_0437.jpg Maybe it would be time to nominate the set of images in Category:Sexual penetrative use of cucumbers for deletion, given that the Flickr account is gone, and there is no evidence that the women ever consented to the Flickr upload, let alone the Commons upload? When one of the set was up for deletion a while ago, consent was not even mentioned: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dede_Cucumber_0437.jpg Nobody took note of the Photographed by Heinrich logo in the bottom right corner either. It seems their eyes were elsewhere. :) There is not even a personality rights warning. And on top of it, the images come with precise, pinpoint geolocation, with helpful links to Google Maps, Google Earth and OpenStreetMap, so you can see which house they were taken in. It's nuts. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Hello again Andreas On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names, according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly faster than the Wikimedia response. You are wrong yet again. I am speaking from experience here, and inappropriate images have been removed within minutes of them being brought to our attention. Odder, a Commons oversighter also verifies this at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_problematic_files_to_be_brought_to_our_attention where he states: as all reports of potentially illegal content are responded to within a few hours (sometimes even minutes), which is much better than the 12 hours than Flickr takes pride in. 12 hours being the length of time it was quoted by one of your cohorts. Also, Andreas, for someone who is so interested in Commons and having images removed and having a streamlined reporting process, it is most curious as to why you haven't commented in that thread above, and added your support to it. Or is it easier to ignore the fact that we on Commons are being pro-active in issues such as this and keep peddling OMG COMMONS IS BROKEN in venues such as this. Any other reports you have to make are also best done on Commons, so that our admins can deal with them within our processes. I believe this has been told to you on numerous occasions now, amirite? Your contribs (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayen466) and deleted contribs (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Jayen466) clearly demonstrate that it is more important for you to troll off the project, than it is do anything remotely useful on the project. Regards, Russavia ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Russavia and Andreas, I want to take this opportunity to point out that the style of argument the two of you have been engaged in since last night is exactly what some of us mean when we refer to an aggressive atmosphere that makes us uncomfortable on the projects. Turning a disagreement over how to apply policy into you are this, and two years ago you said that, and your friend's boss once did this other thing, all in an attempt to discredit the other person, is not a constructive way to make one's own point. It doesn't actually strengthen either side's argument; it only escalates the entire dispute. It is entirely possible to disagree - vehemently - without the ad hominems, the dirt digging background research, and general aggressive posturing we're seeing here. In an atmosphere where one doesn't feel one can disagree with someone without being subjected to those things, the idea of speaking up, or even of participating silently, becomes increasingly unattractive. -Fluff On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Hello again Andreas On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names, according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly faster than the Wikimedia response. You are wrong yet again. I am speaking from experience here, and inappropriate images have been removed within minutes of them being brought to our attention. Odder, a Commons oversighter also verifies this at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_problematic_files_to_be_brought_to_our_attention where he states: as all reports of potentially illegal content are responded to within a few hours (sometimes even minutes), which is much better than the 12 hours than Flickr takes pride in. 12 hours being the length of time it was quoted by one of your cohorts. Also, Andreas, for someone who is so interested in Commons and having images removed and having a streamlined reporting process, it is most curious as to why you haven't commented in that thread above, and added your support to it. Or is it easier to ignore the fact that we on Commons are being pro-active in issues such as this and keep peddling OMG COMMONS IS BROKEN in venues such as this. Any other reports you have to make are also best done on Commons, so that our admins can deal with them within our processes. I believe this has been told to you on numerous occasions now, amirite? Your contribs ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayen466) and deleted contribs (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Jayen466) clearly demonstrate that it is more important for you to troll off the project, than it is do anything remotely useful on the project. Regards, Russavia ___ 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] avoiding another categorygate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism#Help_cleaning_up_Category:Prostitutes Ryan Kaldari ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] avoiding another categorygate
Allegations of prostitution are allegations of illegal activities in many jurisdictions, which makes any unsourced edits accusing people in those jurisdictions of prostitution potentially libelous. I'm going to look over the category myself, but please please, anyone else who does so (or already has...Kaldari), please report specific articles/edits that have this issue to the oversight teamhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ#How_to_request_suppression (or just send them to me at this email address) so we can deal with them from that angle. -Fluffernutter On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_** Feminism#Help_cleaning_up_**Category:Prostituteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism#Help_cleaning_up_Category:Prostitutes Ryan Kaldari __**_ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer, then they will help to bring Commons practice in line with the intent of the board resolution. That is all for the good, is it not? No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a blunt instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken in a private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr, Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving. The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent. It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would have to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address that point. YouTube and Flickr would strongly disagree with that assertion. (They have staff.) Unless I'm badly mistaken, their staff is not especially proactive, but instead respond to user flags and DMCA filings. Commons volunteers are proactive. Perhaps not up to your standard of perfection, but to a very high degree. -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent. It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would have to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address that point. Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their reasonable expectation of privacy. The board resolution requires that a photo taken in a private place carry affirmation of consent. Please note the word OR -- not the word AND. It doesn't matter if the people in the photo waived an expectation of privacy, if they are in a private place. Affirmation of consent (to something poorly defined) is still required. Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
like.
Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
So images like this one would have to be deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg
That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which states the
following:
This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to
professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be
reasonably inferred.
Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several such
options available with the consent template.
Ryan Kaldari
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
like.
Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
That looks better than I had remembered -- thanks, and sorry for not
mentioning it.
So images like this one would have to be deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg
That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which states the
following:
This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to
professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be
reasonably inferred.
Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several such
options available with the consent template.
This certainly seems like an improvement to me (in terms of due diligence
and providing the reader with useful information) -- but how does it
address the image's compatibility with the board resolution? It remains
true that all 5 people were in a private setting, and did not (to our
knowledge) express their consent to be published on Wikimedia Commons. (Or
perhaps mere consent to be published is what the board meant - ?)
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On 5/13/13 5:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
So images like this one would have to be deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg
That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which
states the following:
This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres
to professional editorial standards, allowing the status of
consent to be reasonably inferred.
Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several
such options available with the consent template.
This certainly seems like an improvement to me (in terms of due
diligence and providing the reader with useful information) -- but how
does it address the image's compatibility with the board resolution?
It remains true that all 5 people were in a private setting, and did
not (to our knowledge) express their consent to be published on
Wikimedia Commons. (Or perhaps mere consent to be published is what
the board meant - ?)
That's a good point. I wonder if it would be useful to circle back
around with the Board and see if they would be interested in a more
realistic baby-steps approach to the issue of consent.
Ryan Kaldari
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their reasonable expectation of privacy. The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and nobody seems to care. I find that appallingly callous. So what you are saying is that are able to assume consent in instances such as images from the White House stream for the following: 1) That the person consents to being published 2) That the person consents to having their likeness uploaded to Commons 3) That the person consents to having their likeness made available under a free licence 4) That the person consents to having their likeness used commercially 5) That the person understands what making their likeness under a free licence entails etc,etc, etc These are all arguments that we hear on a daily basis, and I am sorry to say that the WMF board resolution makes NO differentiation between images, or even their source. It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting with an expectation of privacy. Let's use this example, which the WMF themselves used in their annual report (6 months after they passed their resolution) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khairat_OLPC_teacher_-_retouch_for_WMF_annual_report_2010-11_(RGB).jpg 1) It's from Flickr 2) It's of school children in a school in India 3) At least six of the children are clearly identifiable 4) Being in a private setting (a school) there is an expectation of privacy The board resolution DICTATES that this photo MUST have consent, and people such as yourself insist on all these extra hoops as per other private setting expectation of privacy images. Am I going to delete it, as the board resolution dictates? Should I delete it? Or how about: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-08-16_Dmitry_Medvedev_and_Bono_6.jpg 1) It's from the Kremlin website 2) We have permission for all Kremlin materials under a free CC-BY licence 3) We can safely assume that all likenesses of Dmitry Medvedev/Vladimir Putin we have permission for But 1) This is taken at a presidential dacha in Sochi 2) Being in a private setting, there is an expectation of privacy 3) Whilst it is likely that Bono agreed to have image published on Kremlin website, there is no evidence a) He agreed to have his likeness uploaded to Commons b) He agreed to have his likeness made available under a free licence c) He agreed to have this likeness made available for commercial usage If Bono should contact us and tell us to remove it, should we? After all, all he has to do is to quote that WMF Board resolution. Should we delete that image if he contacts us? Should we delete it now? And this is by using the same arguments that I have heard for other images using the same board resolution which makes no distinction between images other than private setting with expectation of privacy. How's that for a pandora's box? Regards, Russavia ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting OR with an expectation of privacy. The OR inserted above is important to the paraphrase -- it's one of the things that often gets missed in this discussion. -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Also, I will say this out in the open. What I wrote just previous to this is EXACTLY why we on Commons have allowed ourselves to be guided by common sense and our community drafted policies, rather the potentially destructive Board resolution. I will also make it known that I sent emails to Sue Gardiner, Jimmy Wales and Philippe Beaudette on two occasions last year in relation to this VERY issue, and did not receive a response back from a single one of them. So, please, before we start attacking Commons, please remember that 3 people within the WMF were made aware of this issue on two separate occasions last year, and did nothing about it. (as far as I can tell). Regards, Russavia On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their reasonable expectation of privacy. The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and nobody seems to care. I find that appallingly callous. So what you are saying is that are able to assume consent in instances such as images from the White House stream for the following: 1) That the person consents to being published 2) That the person consents to having their likeness uploaded to Commons 3) That the person consents to having their likeness made available under a free licence 4) That the person consents to having their likeness used commercially 5) That the person understands what making their likeness under a free licence entails etc,etc, etc These are all arguments that we hear on a daily basis, and I am sorry to say that the WMF board resolution makes NO differentiation between images, or even their source. It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting with an expectation of privacy. Let's use this example, which the WMF themselves used in their annual report (6 months after they passed their resolution) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khairat_OLPC_teacher_-_retouch_for_WMF_annual_report_2010-11_(RGB).jpg 1) It's from Flickr 2) It's of school children in a school in India 3) At least six of the children are clearly identifiable 4) Being in a private setting (a school) there is an expectation of privacy The board resolution DICTATES that this photo MUST have consent, and people such as yourself insist on all these extra hoops as per other private setting expectation of privacy images. Am I going to delete it, as the board resolution dictates? Should I delete it? Or how about: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-08-16_Dmitry_Medvedev_and_Bono_6.jpg 1) It's from the Kremlin website 2) We have permission for all Kremlin materials under a free CC-BY licence 3) We can safely assume that all likenesses of Dmitry Medvedev/Vladimir Putin we have permission for But 1) This is taken at a presidential dacha in Sochi 2) Being in a private setting, there is an expectation of privacy 3) Whilst it is likely that Bono agreed to have image published on Kremlin website, there is no evidence a) He agreed to have his likeness uploaded to Commons b) He agreed to have his likeness made available under a free licence c) He agreed to have this likeness made available for commercial usage If Bono should contact us and tell us to remove it, should we? After all, all he has to do is to quote that WMF Board resolution. Should we delete that image if he contacts us? Should we delete it now? And this is by using the same arguments that I have heard for other images using the same board resolution which makes no distinction between images other than private setting with expectation of privacy. How's that for a pandora's box? Regards, Russavia ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Right Pete, It is an important distinction to make, thanks for that. For example A person in the UK is having a meal in a restaurant. It's not exactly a private setting is it? Do they have an expectation of privacy? Read https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#United_Kingdom for the answer to that. For those who are too lazy to click: Another recent court case upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there. These are all the types of distinctions that we on Commons make every day; day in day out. Regards, Russavia On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting OR with an expectation of privacy. The OR inserted above is important to the paraphrase -- it's one of the things that often gets missed in this discussion. -Pete ___ 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] can the Commons images thread move?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/thread.html shows me that Topless image retention -don't give up has stretched on pretty long, and it seems to me like it might be better suited to onwiki discussion instead. Maybe the posters who are very interested in engaging in that conversation could hash this out on Commons or Meta and send this list an update when you have a solid proposal or conclusion? A few things I'd love to see more of on the gendergap list: sharing useful or inspiring blog posts and best practice documentation, promoting the School of Open's Wikipedia-editing course https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/10/school-of-open-offers-free-wikipedia-course/ and similar courses to women, and learning from case studies of Wikimedia projects (or other free culture/free software communities) that have improved gender equity. -Sumana ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] can the Commons images thread move?
I second your proposal. On 5/13/2013 9:36 PM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/thread.html shows me that Topless image retention -don't give up has stretched on pretty long, and it seems to me like it might be better suited to onwiki discussion instead. Maybe the posters who are very interested in engaging in that conversation could hash this out on Commons or Meta and send this list an update when you have a solid proposal or conclusion? A few things I'd love to see more of on the gendergap list: sharing useful or inspiring blog posts and best practice documentation, promoting the School of Open's Wikipedia-editing course https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/10/school-of-open-offers-free-wikipedia-course/ and similar courses to women, and learning from case studies of Wikimedia projects (or other free culture/free software communities) that have improved gender equity. -Sumana __ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: The cucumber ladies still have their pictures on Commons, even though the Flickr account the images were scraped from has long been deleted: (SFW:) http://www.flickr.com/photos/phoenixontherise/6092639951/ I've nominated that category for deletion, in case anyone wants to comment -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to act rather than expecting others to do it, but it's not a particularly pleasant experience. I understand why people don't want to get involved. Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
