Thanks. That helps a lot, really, and I will skim the emails now. I really didn't know what the topic of this extensive discussion *was* before, and didn't have the stomach for another protracted censorship discussion.
thanks again, -- phoebe On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Phoebe, I would really suggest reading the emails if you're interested in > the discussion (or, conversely, not asking for a summary if you're not), > but here's a quick-and-dirty condensation off the top of my head: > > I started the thread to discuss how disposition of topless photo of a > woman on Commons (being used on enwp), and that woman's right to consent or > not consent to the photo being used, was being discussed entirely by men. > The conversation then veered to how sexual images on Commons are a > nearly-intractable problem and how Commons can be unwelcoming to people who > try to discuss them, then to discussion of the Board's resolution that we > must be sensitive to people's identity rights when photos are from private > places, then to how Commons does or doesn't adhere to that resolution, then > to how to *make *Commons adhere (better) to that resolution. There is no > final result; there is only a general feeling that Commons's common > practice is in dispute with how some people interpret the Board's > resolution, that other people feel Commons is already making huge > concessions to the ideas in the resolution, and that some individual images > and categories of images are rather blatant violations of Commons's and/or > the Board's policies/resolutions. > > Hope this helps. > > -Fluff > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Well, I haven't read ANY of the emails in the thread, for the petty >> reason that the subject line makes me cringe every time I see it. And >> according to my gmail count there's something like 100 mails on the topic, >> so I'm probably not going to start now. So if indeed there is actual >> progress being made, if someone could post a 1-para summary of the >> discussion and what the conclusions are, that would be awesome! >> >> (seriously. Refactoring is almost always a helpful exercise when it comes >> to long discussions on complicated issues -- for both the participants & >> those who haven't been following the discussion). >> >> -- phoebe >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
