Re: [Gendergap] Nudity vs Islam in Western Europe
Couple thoughts: *A few moderate Muslim editors chiming in on some of the things we don't like either on Wikipedia wouldn't hurt. *It would be nice if the most obvious of corruption of liberal or libertarian views wasn't lascivious female nudity; but even the Christian Conservatives have come to adapt. * And of course it should be recognized that most of these liberal/libertarian individuals and groups DO recognize that having the US/Europe constantly attacking Muslim countries to choose their leaders only increases the power and influence of the radical Muslims. On 9/7/2011 4:34 AM, Arnaud HERVE wrote: Some radical Muslims want the sharia immediately applied to all populations, even non Muslims, because sharia is the law from God, and God is far superior to any parliament or constitution. Some Muslims are more tolerant for other populations, but for their own family it is still the law, the law as in not a personal choice. Some other Muslims would like to get rid of Islam, but they are not helped by the prevailing multicultural policies, which tend to accept community leaders as the true representatives of what they wish. In the past, xenophobia was restricted to extreme-right political groups. However recently there has been a change, and the liberal lobbies have turned against Islam, which creates a new situation as it is the immigrant population which is now perceived as culturally backwards and threatening for civic rights. The majority of native European populations now perceive immigration as civilization threatening, and in this context Islam is perceived as particularly incompatible with Western civilization. Gender issues have become a major landmark for that in public debate. Gay groups, feminist groups, secular groups, now perceive the right to show female nudity, the right to celibate autonomous life, the right to gender orientation as gains of modern civilization, to defend actively and specifically against Islam. In the past it was against the local conservative right, now it is explicitly against Islam. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Resolution:Images of identifiable people
Anyway they can italic or bold this Phrase: in a private place or situation without permission. ?? On 9/12/2011 10:53 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com mailto:sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this? -Sarah Yes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial content only because of they are prudes. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Kaja Foglio
Unfortunately, I've known Phil and Kaja for years, so I'm a little reluctant to touch it. Still, I'll see what I can do. On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, A fellow woman who Wikis sent me a link to Girl Genius Webcomic's facebook page. Carol, a staff member there, posted that artist Kaja Foglio's article isn't that great and needs work, asking for help! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Girl-Genius-Webcomic/28371352860?sk=wall (I don't know if you need an account to view it) If you scroll down a bit you'll see her plea: Hi! This is Carol at the Studio. I just noticed that Kaja's Wikipedia page is a little weak. It lists her with art credits where she should have author credits, misses her more recent author credits, and doesn't have a proper mention of her Magic art. Also, she's only listed with one Hugo. Is anyone out there a Wikipedian? We'd deeply appreciate some thoughtful updates! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaja_Foglio I encourage you to edit away =) Sarah -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art 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 -- Michael J. Orange Mike Lowrey When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes. -- Desiderius Erasmus ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] CBC Radio on Wikipedia's Gender Gap
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey folks, http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2011/09/sue-gardner-on-wikipedias-gender-gap/ This is me being interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about our gender gap. It's raw (uncut) tape so it's long -- I am guessing about 20 minutes. But you will probably find it interesting, due to the topic and also the fact that --although I don't name anybody-- I talk at some length about this list :-) (You might disagree with how I characterize what's happening here -- i.e., I think I say at one point that the list has been sometimes 'hilarious,' and I realize I may be alone in thinking that. It's fine if you disagree, but I hope nobody finds what I said offensive -- it's meant affectionately, and with respect.) Thanks, Sue Great interview. :-) Good to hear that the media is still interested in reading the research on the topic, and discussing it. Sydney Poore User:FloNight ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap humor
Oh, funny wife. From, Emily On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.comwrote: I recently attended a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador training, in which almost all the experienced Wiki hands were male and bearded, and the newbies were both female and not. When I recounted this to my wife and daughter, the wife speculated, Does this mean that excessive time spent editing at Wikimedia turns you male and/or bearded? -- Michael J. Orange Mike Lowrey male, bearded, about twenty+ years older than anybody else in the room at the time When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes. -- Desiderius Erasmus ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons
That looks good, Ryan. Would it make sense to add something about the release of the image? For example, I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to this photograph or video being taken and released under a free licence. Sarah On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 15:43, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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 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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons
I agree. As you wrote this email, I was altering it to include the phrase consent to publish. Your wording is better, I'll change to that. Toby/99of9 On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: That looks good, Ryan. Would it make sense to add something about the release of the image? For example, I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to this photograph or video being taken and released under a free licence. Sarah On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 15:43, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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 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
Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I added a new parameter to the template for indicating full consent. If
you use {{consent|full}} it outputs:
I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under
a free license, granting unrestricted rights to redistribute the media
for any purpose.
Not commenting on the merit of including such a variation:
Consenting to the release of something under a free license
emphatically *does not* mean granting unrestricted rights to
redistribute the media for any purpose. In particular, under many
licenses, the redistribution is restricted by the requirement that the
new copies also be provided under a free license. They also usually
require that the creator be attributed.
You may wish to rethink the wording of that, a bit.
--
Tracy Poff
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
