On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch
sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
This is a NSFW photo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg
Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.
An admin came in today and declared it
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.netwrote:
On 12/09/2011 02:43, Sarah Stierch wrote:
One thing Wikimedia as a whole *suffers* from is no solidity when it
comes to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken,
changed, manipulated..etc. I
No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the appropriate
permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has not obvious signs
of being a copyright violation. People have been in disagreement about
whether images that are controversial content should be be held to a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.netwrote:
On 12/09/2011 12:18, Sydney Poore wrote:
If you look at the full body of his work, this admin truly is trying to
follow policy and the customs of Commons and WMF projects in general.
Well I might have been too
On 12/09/2011 13:45, Sydney Poore wrote:
No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the
appropriate permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has
not obvious signs of being a copyright violation. People have been in
disagreement about whether images that are
WMF projects should be a leader in assuring that people's human rights are
enforced. Right now WMF policies do not reflect best practices. But the WMF
Board and staff are moving in the right direction.
The problem is that the a large part of the community holds the idea of free
speak as a higher
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:52, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net
He reconsidered and deleted the image. Approaching an admin to reconsider is
always okay. They close dozens of deletion discussions and will sometimes
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 06:50, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
Three more things that I want to state clearly based on these conversations:
Commons bases identifiably on the face of an individual. While in many
situations, that maybe the only way to identify an individual, when it
I was talking with User:Dispenser a bit on IRC this morning, he gave me
permission to post his ideas to this list (since he's better at explaining
these things..than I!)
dispenser: SarahStierch: I've read from Chatroulette that genital detection
only has a low accuracy rate, about 20% false
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?)
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this?
-Sarah
Yes, the
IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person
giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be
uploaded with a free license, and what that means.
Yes, there doesn't really seem to be an appropriate representation about
this. I also think it
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.netwrote:
On 12/09/2011 13:45, Sydney Poore wrote:
No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the
appropriate permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has
not obvious signs of being a copyright
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:01, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:
The problem with all of this on Wikimedia is the anonymity factor.
People could say I am the model and I hereby give consent. I don't
know how we get round that.
Sarah
Especially when the images are
Especially when the images are scraped off the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA Flickr
streams.
That was something I noticed the other day. An anon replaced the
infobox image on Veganism with a close-up shot of a woman's genitals
and a vibrator. I looked to see who had uploaded it and it said Flickr
And as a note - when you review the content that users are uploading using
Bryan's bot, the MAJORITY of it is educational content. Nothing
questionable or too contorversial.
It seems the biggest problems come from a freedom of panorama, nudity/porn,
and celebrity images uploaded to Flickr with
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:06, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
While I support the use of technology, I also fear that people put so much
trust into this technology they aren't aware of the lame content being
uploaded. They love to reiterate that if the bot approves it it's okay
+1. There are hundreds of photographs of women sunbathing, walking down
the
street, etc. It makes me severely uncomfortable that we have people
taking
photographs of people in a voyeuristic manner uploading images to
Commons,
Flickr, whatever. Just because someone (of any gender) lays on
They don't appear to be in any questionable or exploitative situations. I would
like to think you did ask their verbal permission or informed them that they
represent their town on Wikipedia. I have learned to avoid people in images
without strict permission after having an anthropologist as a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?)
I applied for Commons OTRS today...
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Sep 12, 2011, at 5:45 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like we have strong
I'm both a long-time admin on Commons and an OTRS volunteer. I've been
wanting to chime in on this thread, but haven't really had the time. I'm
worried though that I'm about to see history repeat itself, so I want to
quickly share a few thoughts...
First, the issue of consent on Commons has
Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a
(re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to
be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar
policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate
this?
I'm not
--- On Mon, 12/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
First, the issue of consent on Commons has been passionately debates for
years, and has a long and tortured history. Before proposing anything,
please make yourself familiar with the previous discussions and their
outcomes. Most
On 9/12/11 3:58 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I'm not sure if we're ready to move it to meta yet, I do wish we had a
more private place to develop this. It's a rather sensitive topic for
folks. Perhaps a google doc or...?
To be honest, I think that working as publicly as possible is
To be honest, I think that working as publicly as possible is only
good, in the long run, for what needs to happen. Transparency is super
important.
I suppose it's paranoia that makes me sensitive about making it so
transparent in an infant stage. But, if we have to place it
Here's something we might do though. Addition of any image which violates
anyone's privacy to any article can be suppressed on the English
Wikipedia. Using this policy: Removal of non-public personal
information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or
identities of pseudonymous or
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Here's something we might do though. Addition of any image which violates
anyone's privacy to any article can be suppressed on the English
Wikipedia. Using this policy: Removal of non-public personal
information, such
As soon as I have some free time, I'll whip up such a template and throw
it into the water. It'll be interesting to see how it is received.
Ryan Kaldari
Ok, sounds like a plan. I'll make a noise in the east; you strike in the
west...
Fred
___
Hi Ryan,
A draft template was actually made to augment the mostly recently voted
[[COM:SEX]] proposal:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
The proposal closed with no consensus*, but with a few modifications, the
template could still be put to good use.
Toby / 99of9
*Mainly
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a
(re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to
be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar
30 matches
Mail list logo
