Re: [Gendergap] High-heeled shoes as a case study
I would tackle this at the level of deletion templates. Flickrwashing is a known widespread source of copyvios. 1. There should be a template specifically for that class of deletion. 2. This should be added as a new reason for deletion to the appropriate policy page. A Flickr-imported image whose original uploader has had their account removed, and which has no other indication of copyright status, should be eligible for deletion. This can be counterweighted by * significant educational value, e.g., active use (as the best available image) in multiple articles * significant reason to believe the image was originally posted to Flickr by its author [based on metadata or descriptions on the Flickr account at the time of import, or other online sleuthing] If either of these is true, we can take a risk and wait for a takedown notice. But we should be as harsh on getting copyright confirmation for these images as we are for images obviously uploaded by their creator or someone who knows the creator, who fail to choose the right license template. SJ On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Just a follow up... It doesn't even matter, anymore. Some of these images have been nominated before, and been kept. They all just keep stating I don't know the policies and that they are in scope. Perhaps it all is and perhaps I really am an idiot who just can't comprehend the policies, despite reading things multiple times. I think the policy about Flickr accounts being deleted and it doesn't matter is one of the stupidest ideas. Two of the images I nominated have incorrect licenses and were still uploaded from Flickr and okayed by a bot, despite the Flickr account stating they are all rights reserved. I also don't get how a deleted Flickr account can still be considered a source. Commons is really good at making a smart person feel stupid and like a gnat. -Sarah Sarah I know that some of the images have been nominated before and kept, and some of the images have to be repeatedly re-categorized, too. I get frustrated and at times feel that it is a time sink with no end in sight. That is the reason that I wrote to the mailing list to discuss the matter as an community issue. I have come to believe that is rooted in the culture values of the WMF editors who add loads of these images to commons. We can't walk away from the issue because it is too important. We need to discuss it so that we can better understand why that we are having trouble addressing the issue in a way that is promotes an inclusive editing environment. Sydney On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sarah, The principle of least surprise is roughly the following: People who go to a category/gallery/encyclopedia-article expecting something (shoes) should not be surprised by something they may find offensive (naked women wearing shoes). One way to ensure this is to make clearly labelled subcategories for the potentially offensive material. In this case, I made a subcategory: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes and within that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes so everyone who visits that category knows exactly what they're going to see in advance. Regarding your Flickr question: Whether the account is deleted or not doesn't usually change whether or not the picture is in scope. But deleted accounts do make the copyright status more questionable. At the time of upload, the bot would check that the license is correct, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the Flickr user is uploading copyright violations to their Flickr account (Flickrwashing). If there are other likely signs of copyright violation, I would nominate for deletion (as I did for the other image mentioned in this thread http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Young_girl_with_see-through_tops_and_shorts.jpg). When the account is still active, you can also check the rest of the Flickr user's contributions to get a good sense of whether they are really the author of the photos they're uploading. Snapshots aren't necessarily out of scope just because they're snapshots, they're sometimes realistically useful for an educational purpose. Toby On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Toby - Sorry to be a n00b but, can you explain what you mean by refactoring this category according to the principle of least surprise? For anyone else - if you find an image that has been uploaded by a Flickr bot, and the Flickr account has been deleted what do you do? I notice a large portion of images like this are often snapshot uneducational photos (here is an example:
Re: [Gendergap] High-heeled shoes as a case study
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: The number of images in Category:High-heeled shoes is higher than most categories about footwear. Approximately one- third of the images are of full body shots of attractive females who are wearing high heeled shoes, and a significant number of them are nude or posed in sexually provocative positions. Hmm, yes, it's very different from all the other categories about types of shoes. I was just having a look at that category and this image caught my eye: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Young_girl_with_see-through_tops_and_shorts.jpg It was bot-transferred over from Flickr with a description of Hello, My name is Amber and I'm 5' 1 and very petite. I like to meet new people and I'm very easy to get to know. Just ad me as a friend to see all my pics and any comments, notes, and favorites are appreciated too. bye for The Flickr accounts originally involved have since been deleted This makes me very suspicious that we've basically taken an image from a porn-spammer and unquestioningly put it on Commons Chris (The Land) Chris, that is a good point. Commons has other images of Amber. Including one with the original description You guys can get as ruff as you like. I promise I won't break!! bye for now, Amber http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teen_in_tank_top_and_cut-offs.jpg Sydney ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] CFP: From Veiling to Blogging: Women and Media in the Middle East
Call for Papers: From Veiling to Blogging: Women and Media in the Middle East A great opportunity to papers regarding representation of Middle Eastern women in technology; Wikipedia, specifically. Learn more here: http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2011/09/01/womenmedia-in-middle-east-cfp/ -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] High-heeled shoes as a case study
LOL, at least he realizes I'm on a vendetta against crappy profile personal photos too: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bio_picture.jpg The more people speak out against crap on Commons the more our voices will be heard. ;) On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for the support SJ. Does anyone know if there is a template for this? It's this that they claim allow images like that to stay on Commons: http://www.crucialthought.com/2009/03/03/creative-commons-licenses-cannot-be-revoked/ Someone else has jumped in and is arguing on some of this content shouldn't be here. ...fighting the good fight, Sarah On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: I would tackle this at the level of deletion templates. Flickrwashing is a known widespread source of copyvios. 1. There should be a template specifically for that class of deletion. 2. This should be added as a new reason for deletion to the appropriate policy page. A Flickr-imported image whose original uploader has had their account removed, and which has no other indication of copyright status, should be eligible for deletion. This can be counterweighted by * significant educational value, e.g., active use (as the best available image) in multiple articles * significant reason to believe the image was originally posted to Flickr by its author [based on metadata or descriptions on the Flickr account at the time of import, or other online sleuthing] If either of these is true, we can take a risk and wait for a takedown notice. But we should be as harsh on getting copyright confirmation for these images as we are for images obviously uploaded by their creator or someone who knows the creator, who fail to choose the right license template. SJ On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Just a follow up... It doesn't even matter, anymore. Some of these images have been nominated before, and been kept. They all just keep stating I don't know the policies and that they are in scope. Perhaps it all is and perhaps I really am an idiot who just can't comprehend the policies, despite reading things multiple times. I think the policy about Flickr accounts being deleted and it doesn't matter is one of the stupidest ideas. Two of the images I nominated have incorrect licenses and were still uploaded from Flickr and okayed by a bot, despite the Flickr account stating they are all rights reserved. I also don't get how a deleted Flickr account can still be considered a source. Commons is really good at making a smart person feel stupid and like a gnat. -Sarah Sarah I know that some of the images have been nominated before and kept, and some of the images have to be repeatedly re-categorized, too. I get frustrated and at times feel that it is a time sink with no end in sight. That is the reason that I wrote to the mailing list to discuss the matter as an community issue. I have come to believe that is rooted in the culture values of the WMF editors who add loads of these images to commons. We can't walk away from the issue because it is too important. We need to discuss it so that we can better understand why that we are having trouble addressing the issue in a way that is promotes an inclusive editing environment. Sydney On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sarah, The principle of least surprise is roughly the following: People who go to a category/gallery/encyclopedia-article expecting something (shoes) should not be surprised by something they may find offensive (naked women wearing shoes). One way to ensure this is to make clearly labelled subcategories for the potentially offensive material. In this case, I made a subcategory: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes and within that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes so everyone who visits that category knows exactly what they're going to see in advance. Regarding your Flickr question: Whether the account is deleted or not doesn't usually change whether or not the picture is in scope. But deleted accounts do make the copyright status more questionable. At the time of upload, the bot would check that the license is correct, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the Flickr user is uploading copyright violations to their Flickr account (Flickrwashing). If there are other likely signs of copyright violation, I would nominate for deletion (as I did for the other image mentioned in this thread
Re: [Gendergap] fyi: Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica
Hello Ryan, On Friday, September 02, 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote: * Do you know what the ratio of male to female contributors is at Encyclopedia Britannica? No, unfortunately not. It'd be great to have that data and -- as we note -- to have a comprehensive listing of all biographies in EB. * Why the emphasis on female biographies? It seems like a weak indicator of gender bias (as reflected by the WikiSym study). Do we really know that women are significantly more likely to write about women than men are? If so, how much more likely? Unlike the WikiSym study, we are not able to draw connections between the contributors and their contributions. While the gender gap in contribution certainly inspired the work, we're focused on gender bias in content. As we note briefly in the paper, a member of the feminism task force said that much of a contribution there came from mail contributors. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Sesame Street articles
This may not qualify as appropriate for this list, but in the little bit of time I've been in this mailing list I've seen that articles written by women are fair game. I also believe that this would be appropriate because the subject, the children's television show Sesame Street, is a female-oriented subject. These articles have been largely neglected, I think, because The Show's viewers are small children and their parents, a demographic that doesn't tend to edit Wikipedia. For that reason, I think that they also fulfill the systematic bias. (I also edit other articles that apply, including articles about other children's television shows such as Blue's Clues--a GA, and The Wiggles--my first FA). BTW, Sesame Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street) is currently up for FA. This article was delisted in 2008, for good reason, and I've been working on it ever since. It's been quite a journey. I've become an expert on The Show, have amassed a small library of SS books, and have experienced a great amount of joy in the process. FA is so close! All weekend, I'm thinking, C'mon! It's a holiday weekend; surely you have the time to pass it! ;) If it passes, it will be my 9th FA, and my 1st to pass in only one FAC. The interesting thing about this article is that it's essentially a series of summaries of forked articles, all of which I created or re-wrote. The first of these forked articles, History of Sesame Street, was the first of these articles to become an FA. Many of the others are also FAs or GAs. Currently, I'm helping someone write Sesame Street in the U.K. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street_in_the_U.K.) that demonstrates the need for improvement for these articles. I'm thinking that the creator is either a member of the demographic mentioned above or a second-language learner. At the very least, he's a horrible writer. I was going to just let it go (there are scores of badly-written articles on WP, you know), but I decided that if I did, I'd be embarrassed by the association. Ugh, what a pain! For the most part, other than this fellow and maybe two other editors in all of WP, I've been mostly alone in this endeavor. That's why it's taken three years to get Sesame Street to FAC. There are benefits to working this way; I've experienced very little of the drama that I've seen with other editors who tend to edit high-profile and controversial articles. I've also had, for the most part, very positive experiences as a content editor. OTOH, the articles I focus on tend to be highly vandalized. (Don't get me started on Steve Burns!) Personally, I think that's the key to becoming indoctrinated to become a successful WP editor; begin with articles that don't get a lot of attention and ones you can learn from and have the freedom to make mistakes. Christine User:Figureskatingfan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sesame Street articles
Christine, I love that you shared this with us. While I am [[childfree]] (Visit WP:Feminism for that story), I was raised on a steady diet of Sesame Street and the Muppet Show. I think it's super awesome that Sesame Street is up for FA, amazing that you've had so many, I can't even imagine having one! (I get stressed out over the GA criteria, ha ha!) Good luck on Sesame Street!! I do agree that children's topics like this are lacking in Wikipedia, and that parenting in general lacks in quality content on Wikipedia. Whether it's the pregnancy article or subjects like you mentioned. I'm also surprised that there isn't a Children's Television WikiProject (or task force for WP:Television). I just pulled up the article [[Sesame Street, New York, New York]] and I think I'm going to edit it a bit =) I'm surprised someone hasn't tagged it as missing coordinates ;) -Sarah On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Christine Meyer christinewme...@gmail.comwrote: This may not qualify as appropriate for this list, but in the little bit of time I've been in this mailing list I've seen that articles written by women are fair game. I also believe that this would be appropriate because the subject, the children's television show Sesame Street, is a female-oriented subject. These articles have been largely neglected, I think, because The Show's viewers are small children and their parents, a demographic that doesn't tend to edit Wikipedia. For that reason, I think that they also fulfill the systematic bias. (I also edit other articles that apply, including articles about other children's television shows such as Blue's Clues--a GA, and The Wiggles--my first FA). BTW, Sesame Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street) is currently up for FA. This article was delisted in 2008, for good reason, and I've been working on it ever since. It's been quite a journey. I've become an expert on The Show, have amassed a small library of SS books, and have experienced a great amount of joy in the process. FA is so close! All weekend, I'm thinking, C'mon! It's a holiday weekend; surely you have the time to pass it! ;) If it passes, it will be my 9th FA, and my 1st to pass in only one FAC. The interesting thing about this article is that it's essentially a series of summaries of forked articles, all of which I created or re-wrote. The first of these forked articles, History of Sesame Street, was the first of these articles to become an FA. Many of the others are also FAs or GAs. Currently, I'm helping someone write Sesame Street in the U.K. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street_in_the_U.K.) that demonstrates the need for improvement for these articles. I'm thinking that the creator is either a member of the demographic mentioned above or a second-language learner. At the very least, he's a horrible writer. I was going to just let it go (there are scores of badly-written articles on WP, you know), but I decided that if I did, I'd be embarrassed by the association. Ugh, what a pain! For the most part, other than this fellow and maybe two other editors in all of WP, I've been mostly alone in this endeavor. That's why it's taken three years to get Sesame Street to FAC. There are benefits to working this way; I've experienced very little of the drama that I've seen with other editors who tend to edit high-profile and controversial articles. I've also had, for the most part, very positive experiences as a content editor. OTOH, the articles I focus on tend to be highly vandalized. (Don't get me started on Steve Burns!) Personally, I think that's the key to becoming indoctrinated to become a successful WP editor; begin with articles that don't get a lot of attention and ones you can learn from and have the freedom to make mistakes. Christine User:Figureskatingfan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC
Daniel, I totally 3 your use of denial and hostile work environment. Chiming in right now. Been following it since it was posted on WP:Feminism and was sickened by the conversation, so had to move on.. -Sarah On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net wrote: ** An RfC has been opened on the continued use of the photo of a nude pregnant woman as the lead image at [[Pregnancy]], remarked upon here recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy#Lead_image_RfC I found the response by HiLo48 to my !vote (where I raised the to-me relevant issue that I didn't see anyone else talking about directly) very revealing for our current discussions and this list in general. Daniel Case ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
