I have created the new consent template:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
Here is an example of it in use:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Splitting_logs_with_a_gas_powered_log_splitter.JPG
I also added a new section to the
Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons guidelines encouraging
people to use the new template.
The wording of the template and guidelines don't mention anything about
nudity or sexualization. This is on purpose. Hopefully, this will be a
good first step to increasing the value and visibility of consent on
Commons (in a way that builds consensus rather than warring factions).
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/12/11 5:49 PM, Toby Hudson wrote:
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 because it included a clause allowing admins to delete out of
scope sexual content directly in a speedy deletion rather than setting
up a deletion request. There actually wasn't too much opposition to
requiring a statement of consent for identifiable sexual images,
although there was some.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org
<mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
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 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 notably the discussions surrounding these pages:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
The point I can't emphasize enough is that if you put forward any
proposal on Commons that implies there is anything possibly
problematic
about sexual or nude images in any way, you will be completely shut
down. The only way you have any chance to shape the policies and
guidelines on Commons is if you approach the problem from a
sex/nudity-agnostic point of view. Here's a good example of what
NOT to do:
I think a general statement that permission of the subject is
desirable
/ necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing -
thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk)
22:46, 8
January 2009 (UTC)
If the horse was beyond dead in January 2009, imagine where it is now.
That said, there is still lots of room for improvement. In
particular...
Commons already requires consent for photos of identifiable people in
private spaces. In addition, many countries require consent even for
public spaces. (Take a look at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons#Country_specific_consent_requirements.)
The way this requirement works, however, is completely passive and
reactive - there is no impetus to proactively assert consent, only to
assert it when an image is challenged. This is a very inefficient
system. There are no templates or categories or anything to deal with
consent on Commons (apart from Template:Consent which is tied up with
the tortured history of Commons:Sexual_content and can't be used
currently).
I don't think it would be incredibly controversial to introduce a very
simple consent template that was specifically tailored to the existing
policies and laws. This would make things easier for Commons reusers,
professional photographers who use model releases, and admins who have
to constantly deal with these issues. In short, it would be a win for
everyone and it would introduce the idea of thinking proactively about
consent on Commons in a way that isn't threatening to people who are
concerned about censorship.
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
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
