Have you discussed this on commons, or just trying to bypass them? On Friday, May 9, 2014, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all - > > This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than > I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone > currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a > department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that > injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own > opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of > getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view > doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively > employed by a major university, and not just as an editor. > > Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the > liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate > on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people > lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed > to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the > video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of > corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks > of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open > video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons > frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual > video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up > corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if > they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of > the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about > Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link. > > I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact > that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be > disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great > historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on > Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared > on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video > is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the > video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about > to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into > tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video > evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly > important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort > to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as > contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree > of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the > difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front > page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the > "documenting history" one. > > This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, > while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed > in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the > average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board > endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on > Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald. > This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats > have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the > continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a principle > makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my > colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass > Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues that > they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend > using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing that > when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn or > a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely > no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a > video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a stack > of corpses from a broader video. > > If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM > world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public as > a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that > project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project, > but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other projects, > I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who > frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that meaningful > change cannot come from the current Commons administration without outside > pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I will mention this discussion > on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment can > do so here. > > For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page, here's > a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage for a day - warning, it is, > well, corpses - > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot_of_Buchenwald_video_as_MOTD_May_8%2C_2014.png > > Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of least > astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses? > > Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video > posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from > the video? > > ----- > Kevin Gorman > Wikipedian-in-Residence > American Cultures Program > UC Berkeley > > [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> -- Sent from Gmail Mobile on my iPod. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
