Since the issue is mainly (although not strictly limited to) consent of
identifiable persons, it seems that the least disruptive solution would
be to blur the faces in the photographs. There is precedent for this on
Commons, and I think it would be harder to argue against than outright
deleting them. If they are nominated for deletion we already know what
is going to happen: everyone is going to concentrate on the licensing
issue and ignore the consent issue. If we just blur the faces, at least
that forces people to discuss the consent issue on its own merits.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/11/12 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent
these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big
stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these
should have been deleted.
Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and
approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You
don't just do them because you care about something.
I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me.
If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a
well-respected Commons admin does it.
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
