subject:"\[Gendergap\] 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

2013-05-13 Thread Katherine Casey

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

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

2013-05-13 Thread Ryan Kaldari


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

2013-05-13 Thread Ryan Kaldari


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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-13 Thread Sarah

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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Erik, et al

Just a heads up that I have responded to your question at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Evidence_of_consent

I invite all gender gap list members to come to Commons to read what
is written, and get involved.

Cheers,

Russavia



On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

 But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on
 my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a
 suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the
 community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group.

 That's fine, will repost on your talk page.

 Thanks,
 Erik
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Andreas Kolbe

Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
(While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
to it.)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg

The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. Further photographs
showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.

The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:

---o0o---

File:Labret phallic
coddling.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg

To quote a previous nomination: No model age, or consent given in source.
This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We need more
information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 19:36, 11 March 2013
(UTC)

- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any consent problem. Given
that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*. --
Infrogmation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation)
02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person
shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of
which describe her as the photographer's wife. --
Infrogmationhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation) 02:57,
12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
identifiable people in sexually explicit images?
--Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 12:10, 12 March 2013
(UTC)

[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
please see {{2257 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:2257}}. For
the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
number of years (flickr
sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/overdrive_cz/sets/72157603896218916/),
some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
justifiably in my opinion
--moogsihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moogsi
(blah http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi) 18:31, 25
March 2013 (UTC)

[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This
deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav
Faiglhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faigl.ladislav
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faigl.ladislav) 01:49,
1 April 2013 (UTC)
--

Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
photos. -*mattbuck http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbuck*
(Talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck
) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---o0o---

The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
particularly relevant in this regard:

---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.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html

---o0o---

In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr account
holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded to
Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a Commons user who specialised in uploading
sexual media from Flickr. I believe a similar role has more recently been
played by a different account, Handcuffed, after Max Rebo Band ceased
editing in early 2011.

No indication is given that the Flickr account holder or the woman depicted
are aware of and have consented to the Commons upload. Instead, it appears
it is assumed in Commons that if a man uploads sexual images of his current
or former wife (or a woman who is neither, but whom he describes as such)
to Flickr's adult section, this means that the woman in question is aware
of and has consented to the Flickr upload, and is happy for her likeness to
be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to be used in Wikipedia

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the
community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe
below is covered by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality.

If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop talking
on this list (and elsewhere) and make proposals on Commons instead for full
community input.

I hate to tell you this, but blowing hot air on this list or on other
websites will not bring about change. As I've stated, it's all about the
venue.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg

The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:

---o0o---

File:Labret phallic
coddling.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg

To quote a previous nomination: No model age, or consent given in
source. This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We
need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
Conti
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti|✉http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti
19:36,
11 March 2013 (UTC)

- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any consent problem. Given
that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*.
-- Infrogmation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation (
talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation)
02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream,
person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos,
some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. --
Infrogmationhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation) 02:57,
12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
identifiable people in sexually explicit images?
--Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 12:10, 12 March
2013 (UTC)

[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
please see {{2257 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:2257}}.
For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
number of years (flickr
sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/overdrive_cz/sets/72157603896218916/),
some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
justifiably in my opinion
--moogsihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moogsi
(blah http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi) 18:31, 25
March 2013 (UTC)

Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
photos. -*mattbuck http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbuck* (
Talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck) 02:00, 1
April 2013 (UTC)

---o0o---

The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
particularly relevant in this regard:

---o0o---

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html

---o0o---

In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr
account holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded
to Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Hey Fluff,

Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not
agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views
(but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.

I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that
you don't have many contributions there (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and
I am again urging you to come and join us.

Are you up for that challenge?

Cheers,

Russavia


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey 
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air on
 Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
 mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
 conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
 genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
 discussions tend to go there.

 -Fluff



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Katherine Casey

Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have
the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my
right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
tits.

Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very
uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I *am *comfortable
speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
speaking here it will provide support to the people who *are *willing to
brave that environment.

-Fluff


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hey Fluff,

 Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not
 agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views
 (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
 agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
 heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.

 I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that
 you don't have many contributions there (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter),
 and I am again urging you to come and join us.

 Are you up for that challenge?

 Cheers,

 Russavia


 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey 
 fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air on
 Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
 mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
 conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
 genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
 discussions tend to go there.

 -Fluff



 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Oliver Keyes

More seriously; the idea that someone either volunteers themselves to enter
an environment they find disturbing and uncomfortable, or they're actively
contributing to it being disturbing and uncomfortable, is (frankly)
bullshit. Katherine is not responsible for the failure of Commons to
produce much beyond pictures of genitals. If they continue to do so, while
she continues to refuse to get involved, it will still not be her
responsibility.

Where I come from, we tend to take the attitude that people are inherently
capable of change - that if people are contributing to an awkward, and
uncomfortable, and narrowly-scoped environment, they can in fact, very
occasionally, come to understand this and solve for it.

Now: it's true that groups can be aided in this by people from outside who
understand the problem entering to help. But it does not follow that anyone
from outside the environment who notes that there is a problem be /mandated
to participate/ and shamed if they refuse.


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:

 That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who
 didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes,
 they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been *part of the
 solution!* We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the
 lions' teeth will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.



 On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Fluff,

 I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the
 solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway
 shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely
 what I mean by this.

 That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd
 be happy to show you the ropes around my neck of the woods.

 Cheers,

 Russavia


 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey
 fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
  Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
  aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't
 have the
  energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
 on
  Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
  respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment
 where my
  right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
  while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
  tits.
 
  Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them
 very
  uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
  some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am
 comfortable
  speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
  inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
  speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to
 brave
  that environment.
 
  -Fluff
 
 
  On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
 
  wrote:
 
  Hey Fluff,
 
  Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may
 not
  agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar
 views
  (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
 agree
  on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
 heard in
  the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
 
  I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting
 that
  you don't have many contributions there
  (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter),
 and
  I am again urging you to come and join us.
 
  Are you up for that challenge?
 
  Cheers,
 
  Russavia
 
 
  On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey
  fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air
 on
  Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the
 options you
  mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long
 IRC
  conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
 genuine
  impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
  discussions tend to go there.
 
  -Fluff
 
 
 
  ___
  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



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

And I see that you are just as active
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so
you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience.

It goes back to my response to Erik, that it is easier to sit back and
be negative, than it is to get involved. In terms of this list
specifically, you are basically preaching to the choir, and that's not
going to change a thing.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:
 That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who
 didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes,
 they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been part of the solution!
 We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the lions' teeth
 will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.



 On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Fluff,

 I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the
 solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway
 shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely
 what I mean by this.

 That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd
 be happy to show you the ropes around my neck of the woods.

 Cheers,

 Russavia


 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey
 fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
  Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
  aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have
  the
  energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
  on
  Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
  respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where
  my
  right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
  while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
  tits.
 
  Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them
  very
  uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
  some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am
  comfortable
  speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
  inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
  speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to
  brave
  that environment.
 
  -Fluff
 
 
  On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  Hey Fluff,
 
  Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may
  not
  agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar
  views
  (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
  agree
  on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
  heard in
  the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
 
  I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting
  that
  you don't have many contributions there
 
  (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), 
  and
  I am again urging you to come and join us.
 
  Are you up for that challenge?
 
  Cheers,
 
  Russavia
 
 
  On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey
  fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air
  on
  Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the
  options you
  mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long
  IRC
  conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
  genuine
  impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
  discussions tend to go there.
 
  -Fluff
 
 
 
  ___
  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



 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Oliver Keyes

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 And I see that you are just as active
 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so
 you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience.


When I say that shaming is bad? Why, yes. Indeed, I have been a human with
empathic abilities for several decades now.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Alison Cassidy

I feel *exactly* the same way, and I'm a Commons admin :( This speaks for me, 
too.

-- Allie

On May 12, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression 
 and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to 
 dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm 
 much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and 
 support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my 
 opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking 
 that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my tits. 
 
 Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very 
 uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some 
 other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable 
 speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the 
 inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my 
 speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave 
 that environment.
 
 -Fluff
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Oliver Keyes


 Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
 editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
 responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see
 elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.

 I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread
something is going terribly wrong.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Indeed, we could have a twice or thrice daily thread on English
Wikipedia about that very project, couldn't we?


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:


 Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
 editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
 responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see
 elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.

 I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread
 something is going terribly wrong.


 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that
Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.

I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on
Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a
guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000.

But I do know that
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis
and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis
basically pales in comparison to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport

And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?

Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel
free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than
ill-informed opinion.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:

Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see
elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.

I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread
something is going terribly wrong.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Pete Forsyth

I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue.

The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons
are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends
told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an
extraordinary collection of bird photos, among many others. It's worth a
look.[1]

The collection of freely licensed photos and other files at Commons is
enormous, diverse, and useful. It is fairly well organized. Tons of useless
junk gets weeded out. Hundreds of Wikimedia projects are supported in their
various missions.

All this happens in spite of there being a firehose of junk and copyright
violations pointed at Commons every single day.[2] In spite of the fact
that native speakers of many, many languages have to find ways to work
together. In spite of the fact that people bring astonishingly varied
projects and dreams and hopes and expectations to their work on Commons.

What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the
volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to
pitch in whatever way they see fit. Sorting through deletion nominations,
filling requests to rename files, considering policy changes, and -- my
personal favorite -- gradually amassing probably the best compendium of
knowledge about certain aspects of international intellectual property law
ever assembled in human history.

When I hear people refer to this community as broken, I am amazed how out
of touch they are with the reality and exquisite beauty of what Commons is.
I can only assume they are overly influenced by a small number of edge
cases that have come to their attention god knows how, and have generalized
on those experiences to draw a fallacious conclusion.

With all that said, of course, there's a tremendous amount of stuff that
could and should be done to make Commons work better, to make it a more
inviting and respectful environment, to make it more effective at advancing
the Wikimedia mission.

But one thing I am damn sure is not part of that solution is offhand
insults directed at the community of dedicated volunteers who sustain and
nurture Commons. Even if there are unhealthy social dynamics in the way the
site functions (and there certainly are), I can't begin to imagine what
theory of progress would rely on calling them out as a reflection of the
overall health of the project.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JJ_Harrison
[2] For instance, one recent day saw 48 nominations for deletion:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2013/05/04

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that
Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.

I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on
Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a
guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000.

But I do know that
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis
and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis
basically pales in comparison to

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport

And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?

Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel
free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than
ill-informed opinion.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:

I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread
something is going terribly wrong.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Andreas Kolbe

Pete,

The other day, Daniel Case referred on Commons to Commons' failure as a
community to formulate a clear policy about posting identifiable nudes in
private places without any indication as to whether they have consented to
publication of those images under a licensing scheme that allows for nearly
unlimited reproduction, distribution and modification of them.

In reply you said, on Commons, Daniel, I have no doubt that it happens on
our site all the time, and it's horrible, and it's something we should stop
if we possibly can.

Yet now, faced with those horrible things that happen on our site all
the time, and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you
want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things
Commons does.

Shame on you.

Oliver said a very stupid thing. Your seizing on it to deflect from the
fact that the spirit and letter of the board resolution are routinely
ignored in Commons looks like a devious gambit that presents us with a
wonderful opportunity to distinguish those who pay mere lip service to the
idea of putting those horrible things right from those who actually want
to.

As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law, a
journalist friend of mine shared the following anecdote in discussion on
Wikipediocracy a couple of days ago:

---o0o---

My latest magazine piece (here if anyone is
interestedhttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0508/Provoking-peace-in-Indonesia)
is about Ambon, Indonesia, a place few professional photographers go to
anymore. The photo desk couldn't find anything decent to illustrate the
story, and I suggested maybe trolling through Wikipedia commons for old
Dutch public domain stuff. Photo editor cut me right off, told me they'd
introduced a strict policy a few years ago of never user anything from
commons because they invariably draw take-down notices and threats. Even in
the case of pictures of public domain works (an old map for instance), no
doing. He said the pictures themselves are frequently stolen from museums
or government archives. The lawyers told us that commons has such a bad
reputation for accurate licensing that a downstream user such as ourselves
could ultimately be considered culpable if anyone chose to go that route.

---o0o---

There was a coda to that when I found that his publication actually have
some Commons images on their website (though never in print editions,
apparently). I gave an example from last week:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2013/0506/Are-South-Africans-backward-Zambia-s-white-VP-says-so

It turns out it was a copyright violation: it is used on postzambia.com in
two articles dated three months prior to the Commons upload, which was done
by a drive-by account that never edited before or since.

http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=25747
http://www.postzambia.com/post-print_article.php?articleId=26113
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GuyScott.jpegoldid=72608459
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Scottdiff=497500562oldid=497499217

And before someone clever comes along and suggests The Post probably took
it from Commons and put it on the articles' web pages three months after
publication, let us note that there are dozens of photographs of Mr Scott
on postzambia.com, as you would expect for a Zambian newspaper, whereas
Commons has exactly one: that one.

So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may have
lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the
world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site
is riddled with copyright violations.

Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful.

Andreas

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:

I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue.

What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the
volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to
pitch in whatever way they see

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Andreas Kolbe

I'll gladly pass your comment on, Russavia. How should the attribution
read? At present it reads,

Which way?

Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons GNU Free Documentation License
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1106/From-a-distance-Syria-feels-like-Iraq-in-2004


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Andreas

 Please inform your kind colleague, that if they intend to bag
 Commons in future, they should ensure that their own house is in order
 first; for I now have the sad duty to inform you that they have used
 images from Commons with scant regard for licencing, and I have made a
 note of this on the image concerned.


 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Road_sign_Homs-Palmyra-Baghdad.jpg

 The lesson? Before accusing others of violating copyright (i.e.
 Commons) one should stop and think twice before they open mouth and
 insert foot.

 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pete,

 snip



 Yet now, faced with those horrible things that happen on our site all
 the time, and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you
 want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things
 Commons does.

 Shame on you.


Andreas, although I have no *personal* obligation to do so, I fully intend
to continue working on these complex problems, much as I have been for a
couple of years. The first step, in my view, is to develop a thorough
understanding of how things are, while resisting the urge to resort to
sweeping generalizations and finger-pointing. I invite you to join me.


 Oliver said a very stupid thing.


If it appears my previous message was addressed to any one specific person
-- it was not. It was intended to address the oft-repeated claim that
Commons is broken, (or variants on that which cast a negative light on
volunteer contributors to Commons) which a number of different people have
said here and in other conversations.

Your seizing on it to deflect from the fact that the spirit and letter of
 the board resolution are routinely ignored in Commons looks like a devious
 gambit that presents us with a wonderful opportunity to distinguish those
 who pay mere lip service to the idea of putting those horrible things
 right from those who actually want to.


My position on the board resolution is basically that it was
well-intentioned but not useful. I do not know whether or not this was the
intent, but the phrasing of the resolution has nothing to say about nudity
or anything related. If the board's intent was to have portraits of authors
sitting at their desks, and the like, deleted in the absence of an explicit
consent form of some kind, then the resolution is probably fine; but I sort
of hope that's not what they meant to do. Drawing these lines is a thorny
problem that, frustrating though it is, does not have an obvious solution I
can see. 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.)

As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law,

snip

tl;dr


 So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may
 have lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the
 world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site
 is riddled with copyright violations.


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.

Meanwhile, I have worked toward the deletion of, I'd guess, about 20
possible copyright violations on Commons in the last week or so. Just one
of many examples:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mary-williams.jpg
How
many have you reviewed?


 Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful.


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.

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

Hi Pete, et al

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 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.

I know of a site riddled with copyright violations. The Christian
Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-recalls-in-US-history/Jarts-lawn-darts
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lawndarts.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0226/Were-those-the-bones-of-Cleopatra-s-murdered-sister
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ac_artemisephesus.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-recalls-in-US-history/Tylenol
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extra_Strength_Tylenol_and_Tylenol_PM.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/Slinky-1945
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006-02-04_Metal_spiral.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0621/Queen-of-Sheba-left-genetic-legacy-to-Ethiopians-study-finds
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saabaghiberti.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/diggin-it/2011/0630/Enjoy-the-fruit-from-the-serviceberry-tree
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amelanchier_alnifolia.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0702/A-newer-cheaper-Kindle-DX-will-it-matter
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Three_Generations_of_Kindles.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/Nintendo-Game-Boy-1989
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gameboy_Pocket.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1221/Magnitude-7.4-earthquake-strikes-near-southern-Japanese-island-tsunami-warning-issued
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_location_map.svg)

Sigh! Now I have to notify more contributors about their work
basically being used in violation of their licencing by the very
organisation, who supposedly, according to Dan Murphy, says Commons
has a bad reputation for accurate licensing.

It is most unfortunate that Dan Murphy has linked his employer to his
idiotic bashing and trolling of Commons/Wikimedia projects. And it is
little wonder that he didn't think that they would be interested in
doing a guest blog for the troll Gregory Kohsyou know the old
sayingthose in glass houses and all that.

I wonder whether Andreas will publicly post this to the same thread on
Wikipediocracy where he and others are trolling this very list. I
won't hold my breathe!

Cheers,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-12 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)


Ryan Kaldari, 08/05/2013 07:09:

On 5/7/13 9:57 AM, Russavia wrote:

Frankly, I don't know why this is a feminist issue; rather than an
issue of common sense.


Agreed. I often find it is counter-productive to frame these sort of
debates in terms of feminism/sexism/etc. [...]


Sure. I'm not following this list that closely lately, but since when 
it's been hijacked by musty debates on nudity images? Is it the end of 
any hope in the usefulness of this list/group, or just a phase?
	I guess it's a pattern, we now entered the equivalent of the 1980s 
decadence of feminism. 
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/pornography/background/CMC_article.html
«Combining both sexual preference issues and political coercion 
concerns, Pat Califia sees the MacKinnon/Dworkin legal initiative as 
opening the door for suppression of gay rights and the gay life-style.»
	So in the next decade we may see better understanding. Is there 
something we can learn from the past to make this process less painful?
Maybe: «Feminists should reconsider their role in advancing or 
obstructing the agendas of sex worker unions, and how their work on 
behalf of the many victims of sexual violence can be continued without 
perpetuating the marginalization of sex performers and providers.»

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/
	Or as a student says: «In the course of my research, I do believe that 
the older feminist stance on pornography, as represented by the leaders 
of the heyday of the feminist anti-pornography movement, Catherine 
McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, is one that has been subsequently revealed 
to be both outdated and no longer useful for modern feminists. [...] I 
would argue in focusing on the evils of pornography, feminists are 
merely masking larger, deeper, and far more important issues.» 
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1630


Nemo

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Jane Darnell

For what it's worth, I added my comments to your page on Meta

2013/5/9, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com:
 Yay! Erik replied. Seriously, I was beginning to think no one from the
 Foundation read this mailing list anymore aside from me and Kaldari (and we
 read it as volunteers!). See comments below.
snip
 Is there a page on Meta already where we're coordinating overall
 policy reform issues relating to the gender gap (whether WMF or
 community policies) that should be considered?

 Erik



 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution

 There is now. Folks need to remember - Wikipedia is where Wikipedia policy
 is developed, meta is where larger scale policy is developed. So it's the
 best place to be for this type of work right now.

 Sarah

 --
 --
 *Sarah Stierch*
 *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
 *www.sarahstierch.com*


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Katherine Casey

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.comwrote:

 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Tom Morris

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth 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?

The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on, 
register a username on Commons and say Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my 
image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete.

Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm that 
the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.

Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the side 
of caution - in this case, probably deleting. 

-- 
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

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.comwrote:

 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Tom, I agree with your concern. But if the principle is that we should
enforce the board resolution anywhere it applies, we should simply delete
this photo without needing OTRS, right? It's an issue of who's obligated to
do what. The board resolution clearly states that if there is no
demonstration of consent, the file must be deleted. So the subject
shouldn't even need to assert her dissent for the deletion to go through,
if we're to be true to the resolution.

This gets problematic pretty quickly, though, when you think about the huge
number of innocuous and useful images of people in private places on
Wikipedia and other projects. For instance, when the Wikimedia Foundation
published a photo of me on its site, of course they consulted me before
publishing it, and I gave my consent; but that is not reflected in the
Commons file, there's no way for the viewer to know whether I consented or
not. So going by the letter of the resolution, this (and most other
Wikimedia Foundation staff photos) would have to be deleted:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Pete_Forsyth.jpg

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

p.s. I just noticed there is more of a history to the Karen Stollznow file
than I remembered. Looks like it was uploaded more than once:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_1.jpg


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:

 On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth 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?

 The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on,
 register a username on Commons and say Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my
 image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete.

 Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm
 that the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.

 Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the
 side of caution - in this case, probably deleting.

 --
 Tom Morris
 http://tommorris.org/



 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-10 Thread Tom Morris

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:48, Pete Forsyth wrote:
 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.


In the case of the Stollzow case, I'd exercise a little caution only because 
she's from the skeptic community and there's been a lot of back-and-forth about 
feminism and gender equality in that community. It wouldn't put it past people 
to sock to nominate women skeptics for deletion. 

It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could proactively 
deal with these kinds of things.

(They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures, but 
that's another matter...) 

-- 
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:


 It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could
 proactively deal with these kinds of things.

 (They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures,
 but that's another matter...)


I really don't think so Tom. I'm fairly active in these discussions, and
feel my views are generally given appropriate weight. (I've done very
little on OTRS for some time, but so I might not exactly fit the
description, but I consider our OTRS team kindred spirits!)

Sometimes a case is closed counter to my vote; in some of those cases, I
learn something I didn't know. The Stollzow case is a very rare exception
where I feel the wrong decision was made; I don't think it's fair to
generalize from fringe cases like this. It can be a pretty congenial place
to work, and dissenting views are in my experience given fair
consideration. (Care and clarity in expressing one's views is always a
consideration, because of the huge linguistic and philosophical diversity
among Commons contributors.)

-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 Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's
 used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy
 prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat
 analogous.


 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities



Come on Erik, the mere fact that the Terms of Use mention the word
harassment in the sentence Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking,
spamming, or vandalism; and Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to
other users. is a very weak straw to cling to here!

The Terms of Use section most closely related to our discussion is actually
this one:

---o0o---

*Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes*

   - Posting child pornography or any other content that violates
   applicable law concerning child pornography;
   - Posting or trafficking in obscene material that is unlawful under
   applicable law; and
   - Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable
   law.


---o0o---

This allows editors to introduce everything to the work environment that is
allowed in a porn shop. Hence the hot sex barnstar in Commons, which if
challenged would no doubt be defended with gleeful jeers of NOTCENSORED.

The point I have been trying to get across here in this list is that the
welcoming attitude to pornography in Wikimedia projects affects *male
contributors' mindsets*, making men more likely to be subtly dismissive of
women, and making women feel unvalued, depressed and demoralised – with
corresponding effects on women's participation.

This is not brain surgery. Millions of workplaces reflect this in their
workplace rules, but you don't have any equivalent.

There is plenty of published research on this; here is an example,
describing the effects on both women's and men's state of mind:

---o0o---

Courts that have found a hostile environment as a result of pornography and
sexual banter have often cited negative psychological effects of
pornography similar to those described in the social science literature.
The opinions point to emotional distress, such as fear,37 humiliation,38
and low self-esteem.39 They also indicate that ambient harassment of this
type makes it hard for the subjected women to focus on work.40 The court in
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.41 found that the emotional upset
created by this type of harassing behavior, combined with its negative
impact on job performance, was sufficient to “alter the conditions of [the
victim’s] employment.”42

Further, courts have recognized that the prevalence of pornography and
sexualized language in the workplace makes it *more difficult for women to *
*be viewed professionally by their male coworkers.43 In such environments, *
*men are more likely to disrespect and to sexually demean women.*44 In
Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.,45 the court found that in “an environment
where women were viewed primarily in terms of women qua women: sexual
objects and inferior to men,” a “reasonable woman would find the terms,
conditions, and privileges of her employment affected by that harassment.”46

The expert in Jenson cited the results of a study that he had conducted,47
which demonstrated that *mere exposure to sexist advertisements made men
more likely to view women in the workplace in a sexualized manner and less
likely to view them as professionally competent.*48 The court found that
this study was probative of the question whether a female employee’s terms
and conditions of employment were impacted,49 and it summarized the study’s
findings as follows:

The results showed that [male] subjects who had been sexually primed
selected almost twice as many sexist questions [to ask a female interview
candidate] as subjects who had not been primed. The results further showed
that men who had been primed moved physically closer to the woman than
non-primed males and evaluated the female interviewee in a sexist
manner—rating her as “more friendly and less competent.”50

This research lends empirical weight to the idea that a sexualized
workplace
places a discriminatory burden on female employees.51

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n2/945/LR102n2BergerParker.pdf

---o0o---

With your very permissive policies and culture you are encouraging male
mindsets which according to mainstream scholarship actively undermine and
discourage female participation.

To be clear, I can't say that I have observed very many cases of men coming
onto women in Wikimedia talk pages, but dismissive attitudes and the sorts
of superior, smug, hair-splitting contributions that seem to take a
perverse pleasure in frustrating a woman contributor are very common.

The Foundation goes on and on and on in the press about the gender gap, yet
is not prepared to do what every workplace does as a matter of course to
facilitate women participating on equal terms. Do you understand why I feel

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pete,

 I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of
 nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts, with no
 indication whatsoever that the women concerned are aware of and have
 consented to the upload,


 snip

 Andreas, you are of course correct. I believe two factors address the
 distance between what you and I said:

 (1) The word consent is not qualified in the Board's resolution, which
 invites this critical question in every case: are we talking about consent
 to be photographed, or consent to have the photo released under a free
 license on a widely viewed, open access web site? This is obviously a
 question of critical importance. The resolution's language doesn't provide
 much guidance. In practice, the places where Commons participants do well
 are with photos where it's visually clear that the subject may not have
 consented to being photographed at all, in the first place (i.e., no reason
 to believe the subject is even aware of the camera).



The resolution wording is:

---o0o---

We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the
use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and
free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is
especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs
from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace
and subject consent difficult to verify.

---o0o---

I don't see anything ambiguous about that.

This topless image is typical:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely_F3247.JPG

Categorised under Hooters. Zero evidence of model consent for the use of
this image.

Here is another of the same woman:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely.JPG

This was okayed by Commons administrator Mattbuck:

---o0o---

This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

---o0o---

Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.

As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a
fool to waste my time contributing there.




 (2) The existence of files on Commons, vs. the ones where somebody takes
 the trouble to write a well-formed nomination for deletion, is a huge one.
 My comments concern only the latter; but of course, there are many
 thousands of files on Commons that could or should be nominated for
 deletion, but haven't. It's important to acknowledge that while such cases
 may reflect the intent of the uploading individual, they by no stretch of
 the imagination reflect the considered judgment of the Commons community.



Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment of
the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give a
toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to
intervene.

This reminds me of the defence proffered by some with respect to the recent
women's categorisation controversy following Amanda Filipacchi's op-ed
about Wikipedia's sexism in the New York Times: that these categorisations
were in violation of obscure guidelines.

Having guidelines does not absolve an organisation from responsibility for
its actions when in practice it makes no effort to enforce them.

You are simply in denial. Address the reality, rather than hiding behind a
policy that is not observed in practice.

Andreas
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Sarah Stierch

Hi, I have some comments inline.





 ---o0o---

 This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
 the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
 on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

 ---o0o---

 Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.


As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a
 fool to waste my time contributing there.



Andreas, just curious, have you tried nominating anything like this for
deletion with citing the board statement? I think we start experimenting
with that (I can't do that right now, as I'm in an airport restaurant and
not feeling comfortable looking at that image right now!). I'm curious how
that would work.

We could develop a process:

1) Nominate for deletion with that clause called into play (since our
challenges for being non-education or out of scope will be challenged most
likely)
2) If challenged on discovering model consent, generic email letter
developed to email Flickr account owner (since that's often the plague of
this)
3) If account is deleted, the image should be deleted assuming no other
acceptance of model agreement is able to be discovered based
on anonymity of model and deletion of Flickr account.
4) Fight the good fight on Commons.

Perhaps we can develop something like that. Seriously, for years, it's
often been..me, pete, Kevin, and Kaldari (and if you've been involved,
forgive me for not listing you) who have nominated content for deletion.

Again stop bitching, start a revolution comes into play here.





 Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment
 of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give
 a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to
 intervene.



This is where it falls two ways IMHO:

1) It's up to US to start *trying* to implement said compliance
2) If it's not being complied too, we need to know who to contact

And if that means sending a crap ton of emails to le...@wikimedia.org, so
be it. Right? Because we aren't informed of any other type of action to be
taken in the TOS, or whatever other policies developed by the board. Unlike
copyright infringement, nothing is suggested on what *we* can do when this
stuff is happening.


We can try to implement, and then when it fails, directly contact the
Foundation.

Seriously, sitting here on this mailing list is great, we're getting
conversation started (Again) about it, but...we need to do more!

-Sarah




-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Pete,

Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we
can request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.

Andreas

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 The resolution wording is:


 ---o0o---

 We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for
 the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational
 and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is
 especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs
 from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace
 and subject consent difficult to verify.

 ---o0o---

 I don't see anything ambiguous about that.


 I find it highly ambiguous, and while I tend to agree with you that
 probably the majority of nude images on Commons should be deleted due to
 lack of explicit and verifiable declarations of consent, I do not feel the
 wording quoted above would be helpful in persuading others of that. (In
 addition, the absence of a clearly documented process for obtaining and
 expressing consent doesn't help. Again, something that anybody can do, very
 little technical knowledge required.)

 Consent is a verb that is only useful in its transitive form. It is
 meaningless to say the subject consents. Consents *to what*? ...for
 the use of such media is not specific. Also, we feel is not language
 that lends itself to strong project-specific policies.

 -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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
Commons, community?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
 Pete,

 Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we can
 request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.

 Andreas

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi, I have some comments inline.
 ---o0o---


 This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by
 the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available
 on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

 ---o0o---

 Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.


 As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a
 fool to waste my time contributing there.



 Andreas, just curious, have you tried nominating anything like this for
 deletion with citing the board statement? I think we start experimenting
 with that (I can't do that right now, as I'm in an airport restaurant and
 not feeling comfortable looking at that image right now!). I'm curious how
 that would work.

 We could develop a process:

 1) Nominate for deletion with that clause called into play (since our
 challenges for being non-education or out of scope will be challenged most
 likely)
 2) If challenged on discovering model consent, generic email letter
 developed to email Flickr account owner (since that's often the plague of
 this)
 3) If account is deleted, the image should be deleted assuming no other
 acceptance of model agreement is able to be discovered based
 on anonymity of model and deletion of Flickr account.
 4) Fight the good fight on Commons.

 Perhaps we can develop something like that. Seriously, for years, it's
 often been..me, pete, Kevin, and Kaldari (and if you've been involved,
 forgive me for not listing you) who have nominated content for deletion.

 Again stop bitching, start a revolution comes into play here.




I have wasted too many hours already arguing deletion cases which were then
closed as Keep by Mattbuck.

How about we ask Erik, who started Wikimedia Commons, to nominate them,
citing the board resolution? This would make a stronger impression.

What do you say, Erik? Or do you feel these images should remain on Commons?

Just for reference, the images we are talking about are here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

All are Flickr imports, uploaded pseudonymously. None have evidence of
model consent for use on Wikimedia projects. The women concerned are most
likely unaware that the images are on Commons.




 Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment
 of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give
 a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to
 intervene.



 This is where it falls two ways IMHO:

 1) It's up to US to start *trying* to implement said compliance
 2) If it's not being complied too, we need to know who to contact

 And if that means sending a crap ton of emails to le...@wikimedia.org, so
 be it. Right? Because we aren't informed of any other type of action to be
 taken in the TOS, or whatever other policies developed by the board. Unlike
 copyright infringement, nothing is suggested on what *we* can do when this
 stuff is happening.


 We can try to implement, and then when it fails, directly contact the
 Foundation.

 Seriously, sitting here on this mailing list is great, we're getting
 conversation started (Again) about it, but...we need to do more!

 -Sarah




 --
 --
 *Sarah Stierch*
 *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
 *www.sarahstierch.com*

 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
 upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
 do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
 Commons, community?



Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect
community consensus, but guide it.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Commons community were consulted
prior to the announcement of the existing wording either.



 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
  Pete,
 
  Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we
 can
  request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.
 
  Andreas

 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Pete Forsyth

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia 
 russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
 upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
 do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
 Commons, community?


 Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect
 community consensus, but guide it.


It's not that clear-cut. Again, I think the TOU rewrite is a good example
of how the community and the board can make progress together effectively.
A great deal of wisdom and passion resides in the global community that has
brought Wikimedia to the point it is at today, alongside more frustrating
elements. But in this case, I would say something initiated on this list
(by one part of the community) and improved upon by others, in other
venues, would be a great way to draft a proposed resolution for the board's
consideration.


 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
  Pete,
 
  Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then
 we can
  request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.
 
  Andreas


If there's some desire to pursue this, I will gladly participate. I agree,
this would be an excellent project, and I'd be proud to be part of it.
Crafting the right language to avoid undesirable consequences will take
work, and I don't know enough to do it by myself. But I do think that
encompassing more than merely identifiable subjects is an important
factor to keep in mind, in addition to more specificity around what the
model is expected to consent to.

-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 Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia 
 russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
 upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
 do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
 Commons, community?


 Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect
 community consensus, but guide it.


 It's not that clear-cut. Again, I think the TOU rewrite is a good example
 of how the community and the board can make progress together effectively.
 A great deal of wisdom and passion resides in the global community that has
 brought Wikimedia to the point it is at today, alongside more frustrating
 elements. But in this case, I would say something initiated on this list
 (by one part of the community) and improved upon by others, in other
 venues, would be a great way to draft a proposed resolution for the board's
 consideration.





Well, I'll have a go then:

---o0o---

We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the
use of such media *on Wikimedia sites*, in line with our special mission as
an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an
image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of
uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance
is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

---o0o---

Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that editors
are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in
private situations to Wikimedia websites.

Do you agree with the principle? Or do you think editors should continue to
upload images taken in a private place or situation to Wikimedia sites
without the knowledge and consent of the people depicted?
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that editors
 are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in
 private situations to Wikimedia websites.

Define private situations.

Thank you.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Actually, it's total gobbledygook.

But can you confirm that what you take it to mean is that quite simply
consent is required if the photo is taken in a private place with an
expectation of privacy?

Cheers

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Daniel and Elizabeth Case

It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in watching how 
what goes.

Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50

Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:

One drink:

Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just wait a 
while.
Closed by Mattbuck as keep.

Two drinks:

User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that 
actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the I just like 
sticking it to the Man!” vein.
Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get over 
that.
Closed by another admin as keep.

Three drinks:

Closed by Mattbuck as delete.

Daniel Case
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Katherine Casey

Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that closed by Mattbuck
as delete probably ought to be a finish your drink qualifier...

-Fluffernutter


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case 
danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:

   It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

 Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
 watching how what goes.

 Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.


 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50

 Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:

 One drink:

 Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
 Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
 Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
 User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
 Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
 wait a while.
 Closed by Mattbuck as keep.

 Two drinks:

 User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
 actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
 Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
 Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the I just like
 sticking it to the Man!” vein.
 Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
 over that.
 Closed by another admin as keep.

 Three drinks:

 Closed by Mattbuck as delete.

 Daniel Case


 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-09 Thread Nepenthe

File:Ronda F7998.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ronda_F7998.JPGis
clearly in scope. Could be used to illustrate Urn, Vase,
Pottery,
Crosslegged etc.



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 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

 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Katherine Casey
 fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
  Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
  play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that closed by
 Mattbuck
  as delete probably ought to be a finish your drink qualifier...
 
  -Fluffernutter
 
 
  On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
  danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:
 
  It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:
 
  
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50
 
  Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
   watching how what goes.
 
  Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.
 
 
 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50
 
  Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:
 
  One drink:
 
  Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
  Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
  Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
  User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
  Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
  wait a while.
  Closed by Mattbuck as keep.
 
  Two drinks:
 
  User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
  actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
  Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
  Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the I just like
  sticking it to the Man!” vein.
  Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
  over that.
  Closed by another admin as keep.
 
  Three drinks:
 
  Closed by Mattbuck as delete.
 
  Daniel Case
 
 
  ___
  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

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 herehttp://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
listhttp://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
sethttp://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.
russaviahttp://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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Fluffernutter,

That is a totally ridiculous comment to make.

Do I have to show you just how ridiculous it is by generating a list
of sexuality discussions that Mattbuck has 1) nominated for deletion
or 2) closed as delete.

Of course, if one was more active on Commons
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter)
they would see that for themselves, instead of relying on ridiculous
assertions being peddled by others.

C'mon now.

Russavia



On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Katherine Casey
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
 play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that closed by Mattbuck
 as delete probably ought to be a finish your drink qualifier...

 -Fluffernutter


 On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
 danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:

 It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

 Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
  watching how what goes.

 Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.


 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50

 Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:

 One drink:

 Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
 Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
 Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
 User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
 Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
 wait a while.
 Closed by Mattbuck as keep.

 Two drinks:

 User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
 actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
 Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
 Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the I just like
 sticking it to the Man!” vein.
 Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
 over that.
 Closed by another admin as keep.

 Three drinks:

 Closed by Mattbuck as delete.

 Daniel Case


 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Erik,

I will answer your questions, only too happy to, and you are free to
pass my answers on to others within the foundation. Because it is
something that I have trying addressing with others in the foundation
in the past, but which has been ignored by way of no reply.

But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on
my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a
suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the
community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group.

Is that ok with you?

Cheers,

Russavia

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-08 Thread Mary Mark Ockerbloom


Regarding the question of what can you do,
I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment.
Prominent on the first page:

Harassment Defined
1.  Hostile Environment
 Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, 
or physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, 
sex, sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is 
unwelcome to the reasonable person, and
 	a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's 
work performance
 	b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, 
hostile or offensive working environment. 


Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome 
sexual attention, sexual advances, etc.


I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what 
Wikipedia's policy is.

(Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.)  It covered item 2.
But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
is not included.

Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high 
level as unacceptable

behavior which creates a hostile environment

Mary
--
--
Mary Mark Ockerbloom  http://members.verizon.net/~vze48qpu/
Celebration of Women Writerscelebration.wo...@gmail.com
To make books is to time travel, to magically acquire the
ability to be in many places at once. -- Audrey Niffenegger

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom 
celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Regarding the question of what can you do,
 I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
 I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
 which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment.
 Prominent on the first page:

 Harassment Defined
 1.  Hostile Environment
  Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or
 physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual
 preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the
 reasonable person, and
 a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work
 performance
 b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile
 or offensive working environment. 

 Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome
 sexual attention, sexual advances, etc.

 I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's
 policy is.
 (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.)  It covered item 2.
 But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
 is not included.

 Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
 this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
 potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

 I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
 this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high level
 as unacceptable
 behavior which creates a hostile environment



A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator
Incident:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but
apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a number
of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia
policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is
grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace
outside of the adult entertainment industry:

NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or
drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is
something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms
of use:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not
outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing
the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its
online environment?
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-08 Thread Nepenthe

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom 
 celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Regarding the question of what can you do,
 I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
 I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
 which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment.
 Prominent on the first page:

 Harassment Defined
 1.  Hostile Environment
  Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or
 physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual
 preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the
 reasonable person, and
 a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work
 performance
 b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile
 or offensive working environment. 

 Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome
 sexual attention, sexual advances, etc.

 I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's
 policy is.
 (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.)  It covered item 2.
 But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
 is not included.

 Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
 this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
 potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

 I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
 this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high
 level as unacceptable
 behavior which creates a hostile environment



 A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator
 Incident:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

 Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but
 apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

 To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a number
 of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia
 policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is
 grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace
 outside of the adult entertainment industry:

 NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

 Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

 It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or
 drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is
 something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms
 of use:


 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

 However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not
 outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing
 the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its
 online environment?

 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

I have friends who live up there. And I will be in the area in July.

I'll see if we can get decent photos of the hot springs.

Actually it might be federal land therefore we can get public domain images for
it. I need to look into that when I am online.

The best thing to do: replace the crap with quality. Be bold.

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
From the deletion discussions I've looked at
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be
used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles
on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom
celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the question of what can you do,
I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment.
Prominent on the first page:

Harassment Defined
1. Hostile Environment
Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or
physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual
preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the
reasonable person, and
a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work
performance
b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile
or offensive working environment.

Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome sexual
attention, sexual advances, etc.

I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's
policy is.
(Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2.
But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
is not included.

Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high level
as unacceptable
behavior which creates a hostile environment

A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator
Incident:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but
apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a number of
user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia
policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is
grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace
outside of the adult entertainment industry:

NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or
drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is
something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms
of use:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not
outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing
the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its
online environment?

___
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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

 The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
 From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
 a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
 it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
 be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

 Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
 articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

 It's female nudes all the way down.

 Nepenthe



I would say that until the Foundation does something to set a different
direction, it is indeed pointless to argue about things like this in
Wikipedia or Commons.

However, sexism and the gender gap have been prominent topics in the press
these last couple of weeks. Talk to journalists instead. You may find them
more sympathetic, and such an effort has a better chance of bringing about
change.




 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom 
 celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Regarding the question of what can you do,
 I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
 I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
 which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from
 Harassment.
 Prominent on the first page:

 Harassment Defined
 1.  Hostile Environment
  Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or
 physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual
 preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the
 reasonable person, and
 a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work
 performance
 b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating,
 hostile or offensive working environment. 

 Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome
 sexual attention, sexual advances, etc.

 I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's
 policy is.
 (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.)  It covered item 2.
 But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
 is not included.

 Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
 this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
 potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

 I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
 this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high
 level as unacceptable
 behavior which creates a hostile environment



 A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator
 Incident:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

 Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but
 apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

 To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a number
 of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia
 policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is
 grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace
 outside of the adult entertainment industry:

 NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

 Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

 It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs
 or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is
 something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms
 of use:


 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

 However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not
 outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing
 the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its
 online environment?

 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Another idea -

Perhaps we can create a working list of articles that need better photos and
are using absurd sexualized images etc as their photos.

Obviously sex articles wouldn't always fall into thy category, but, I'm
thinking more stupid things like the hot springs article.

Instead of wiki loves we can call it wiki hates stupid sexist gross photos in
articles that so don't need them

I'm not starting the list...though. I'm suffering from severe gender gap burn
out.

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles
on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome sexual
attention, sexual advances, etc.

Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator
Incident:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but
apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are you
looking for them to do?

You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on what
they could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I was
you.

As you very well know, grantmaking and technical aren't able to do much of
anything, due to our new focus. However, community members are welcome to
develop Individual Engagement Grants and chapters are able to acquire
funding for programs and projects, and the gender gap is something everyone
loves to talk about over and over and over again but no one seems to be
willing to step up as individuals or as chapters to make large scale
changes outside of outreach activities. (And I am grateful for all people
do on this list, but..I'm just sayin...it seems to be the same people over
and over again bringing this up, however, all people seem to do to about it
is complain and talk about it, and take no action, and it's really tiring
and depressing to watch and puts the burden on those of us who have limited
time and are already burnt out).

-Sarah


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

 The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless
 endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
 a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
 it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
 be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

 Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
 articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

 It's female nudes all the way down.

 Nepenthe



 I would say that until the Foundation does something to set a different
 direction, it is indeed pointless to argue about things like this in
 Wikipedia or Commons.

 However, sexism and the gender gap have been prominent topics in the press
 these last couple of weeks. Talk to journalists instead. You may find them
 more sympathetic, and such an effort has a better chance of bringing about
 change.




 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom 
 celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Regarding the question of what can you do,
 I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
 I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
 which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from
 Harassment.
 Prominent on the first page:

 Harassment Defined
 1.  Hostile Environment
  Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual,
 or physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex,
 sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the
 reasonable person, and
 a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's
 work performance
 b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating,
 hostile or offensive working environment. 

 Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome
 sexual attention, sexual advances, etc.

 I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what
 Wikipedia's policy is.
 (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.)  It covered item 2.
 But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
 is not included.

 Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
 this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
 potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

 I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
 this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high
 level as unacceptable
 behavior which creates a hostile environment



 A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator
 Incident:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

 Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but
 apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

 To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a
 number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any
 Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The
 imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any
 workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry:

 NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

 Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

 It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs
 or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is
 something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms
 of use:


 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

 However,

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot
Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

At this point, I'm so over fretting about porny stuff on Commons - I'm
more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on
Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of our websites, then I'm not
really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved.
(Meaning naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on
Commons under a free license.)

-Sarah


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

 The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
 From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
 a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
 it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
 be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

 Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
 articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

 It's female nudes all the way down.

 Nepenthe


-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-08 Thread Nepenthe

Sarah, indeed, I should have been more clear. It is the Commons category
for the Hot Springs that contains the nude images, not the en.wikipedia
article.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

 Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot
 Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

 At this point, I'm so over fretting about porny stuff on Commons - I'm
 more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on
 Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of our websites, then I'm not
 really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved.
 (Meaning naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on
 Commons under a free license.)

 -Sarah


 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

 The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless
 endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
 a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
 it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
 be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

 Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
 articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

 It's female nudes all the way down.

 Nepenthe


 --
 --
 *Sarah Stierch*
 *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
 *www.sarahstierch.com*

 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth

As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd
hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be
the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than
clothed people.

But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked people on Commons is
a very different thing than having naked people used to illustrate an
encyclopedia article. And this particular example is one of many, many
thousands of images of nudity on Commons, some of which are far more
problematic. I would urge anyone wanting to take this issue on to spend
some time processing maybe 20 or 30 of the dozens of deletion requests that
come through Commons on a daily basis. It's a good way to get a sense of
the scope of the issues involved, and the thinking around what does and
doesn't get kept.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

 Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot
 Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

 At this point, I'm so over fretting about porny stuff on Commons - I'm
 more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on
 Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of our websites, then I'm not
 really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved.
 (Meaning naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on
 Commons under a free license.)

 -Sarah


 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

 The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless
 endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
 a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
 it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
 be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

 Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
 articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

 It's female nudes all the way down.

 Nepenthe


 --
 --
 *Sarah Stierch*
 *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
 *www.sarahstierch.com*

 ___
 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

2013-05-08 Thread Russavia

The best idea I've seen!

If a subject area is lacking on Commons, the best way to go about it
is to upload more photos, so that the one or two naturist photos
blend in.

Look forward to seeing more images in that category in the future. :)

Cheers,

Russavia

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
I have friends who live up there. And I will be in the area in July.

I'll see if we can get decent photos of the hot springs.

Actually it might be federal land therefore we can get public domain images
for it. I need to look into that when I am online.

The best thing to do: replace the crap with quality. Be bold.

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
From the deletion discussions I've looked at
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom
celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote:

Regarding the question of what can you do,
I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from
Harassment.
Prominent on the first page:

Harassment Defined
1. Hostile Environment
Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or
physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual
preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the reasonable
person, and
a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work
performance
b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile
or offensive working environment.

Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome
sexual attention, sexual advances, etc.

Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior
potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high
level as unacceptable
behavior which creates a hostile environment

A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator
Incident:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but
apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a number
of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia
policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is
grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace
outside of the adult entertainment industry:

NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

 Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are you
 looking for them to do?



Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as I
am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR
exercises, and no deeds.

One idea was raised just now: Enshrine the equivalent of the friendly space
policy that applies to meet-ups in the terms of use, to apply to the online
environment. Treat it like any workplace environment. Make clear that
sexism, including inappropriate use of sexual imagery, will not be
tolerated.

Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons, making it clear that the
more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome.

The Foundation should have cleaned up the festering sore that is Commons
(ethically broken, as Jimmy Wales called it recently) years ago. It has
lacked the will to do so.

Without support from the top it is no surprise that people like you burn
out, or simply stop challenging certain issues, because doing so makes you
an outcast in the community that assembles under those conditions.

Here is what you said a few days ago:

---o0o---

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about
nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so
demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated You'll never
be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this, and I always wanted to be
an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male
Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an
entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.

---o0o---

Again, without support from the top, there is nothing you can do, or could
have done as a fellow, to address this. But know this: the people who will
leave in protest if the Foundation ever does step up to the plate are the
ones who made your life hell there.

What Kaldari said earlier – Don't mention the sexism! – is a policy of
appeasement and collusion. It reminds me of the parable of the boiling
frog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

People in Wikipedia who are not sexists seem to have gotten so used to the
institutionalised sexism that they have stopped noticing it, accepted it as
part of the deal – something they can't change – and lost touch with the
moral bearings they had before they entered the project.

Every non-Wikipedian I have described the situation at List of vegetarians
to, or sent a link to the discussion, has reacted with complete
incomprehension (or derision).

What are people like that doing in a Wikipedia article like this?

The Wikimedia Foundation should adjust its policies to be less welcoming to
editors with such strange views of women, so they no longer outnumber, to
use Kaldari's expression, normal people.

The Foundation should have done so years ago. It has had many opportunities
to do so, and has so far failed to take any of them.



 You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on
 what they could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I
 was you.

 As you very well know, grantmaking and technical aren't able to do much of
 anything, due to our new focus. However, community members are welcome to
 develop Individual Engagement Grants and chapters are able to acquire
 funding for programs and projects, and the gender gap is something everyone
 loves to talk about over and over and over again but no one seems to be
 willing to step up as individuals or as chapters to make large scale
 changes outside of outreach activities. (And I am grateful for all people
 do on this list, but..I'm just sayin...it seems to be the same people over
 and over again bringing this up, however, all people seem to do to about it
 is complain and talk about it, and take no action, and it's really tiring
 and depressing to watch and puts the burden on those of us who have limited
 time and are already burnt out).

 -Sarah


 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.comwrote:

 The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless
 endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
 a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
 it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
 be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

 Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
 articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

 It's female nudes all the way down.

 Nepenthe



 I would say that until the Foundation does something to set a different
 direction, it is indeed pointless to argue about things like this in
 Wikipedia or Commons.

 However, sexism and the gender gap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are
you looking for them to do?

Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as
I am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR
exercises, and no deeds.

Oy vey. Always drama used in your words Andreas! :) I don't think I've ever
seen you post a success story or a positive comment on this mailing list
ever.

One idea was raised just now: Enshrine the equivalent of the friendly
space policy that applies to meet-ups in the terms of use, to apply to the
online environment. Treat it like any workplace environment. Make clear
that sexism, including inappropriate use of sexual imagery, will not be
tolerated.

I actually brought this on in the civility policy discussion a while back
(or something like it), and it was shot down vehemently by the community.
Someone has submitted a proposal for Wikimania to discuss it. I encourage
you to attend if you can:

http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Adopting_friendly_virtual_space_policy

Two of the most vocal and active community members in the movement are
already signed up to attend as critics of it.

Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons, making it clear that the
more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome.

The community would have to do that. Wikimedia Foundation doesn't do that.
Wikimedia Foundation didn't invent Commons or create the scope for Commons,
as far as I know. (I could be wrong though.) So I'm not sure why that would
fall into the scope. If Wikimedia stepped in and said Ok Commonists, here
is your new scope, all hell would break lose and we'd most likely have a
fork.

The Foundation should have cleaned up the festering sore that is Commons
(ethically broken, as Jimmy Wales called it recently) years ago. It has
lacked the will to do so.

Andreas, you consistently have a negative outlook on things. I agree that
Commons is a really screwed up strange place. Jimmy and I have both gotten
ourselves into trouble in the community fanatically nominating and trying
to delete content. However, you're constant negative and jerky attitude
towards the Foundation makes them 10 times more unlikely to ever support
something *you* want to see change in. Channelling your anger into positive
productivity might be a better thing to get people to take notice and want
to make a change. But, that's just my opinion. You and I have similar
opinions on what needs to happen on Commons, but, we disagree on where it
needs to come from - and I think you have the opportunity to help lead to
make the change. I really do.

Without support from the top it is no surprise that people like you burn
out, or simply stop challenging certain issues, because doing so makes you
an outcast in the community that assembles under those conditions.

I chose to take on these tasks myself. I applied to be a WIkimedia fellow
for a year who lived and breathed the gender gap - no wonder I'm burnt out.
And when you're the go to person, it happens. I'm grateful, but, even I
want to step away and not think about the gender gap sometimes.

This happens to most people, especially women (note: when was the last time
you saw a man state he was burnt out?), and the Foundation has nothing to
do with it, trust me. Sure, I'm severely disappointed at the change in
scope and the removal of funding to support women's outreach outside of
community grants. For months I had to sit at my desk and stare at a big
sign saying WMF wanted to increase the number of women editors, knowing my
fellowship was ending and no one at the Foundation would be funded to
continue that work on a large scale. It's been tough, but, so many women
have stepped up to make a change...

And now we need more people to stop bitching and make the change. And all I
see here is a lot of bitching.

Here is what you said a few days ago:

---o0o---

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about
nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so
demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated You'll never
be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this, and I always wanted to be
an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male
Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an
entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.

---o0o---

Again, without support from the top, there is nothing you can do, or could
have done as a fellow, to address this. But know this: the people who will
leave in protest if the Foundation ever does step up to the plate are the
ones who made your life hell there.

No one made my life hell, that's dramatic. The people who really frustrated
me have different views of sexual

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up