[Gendergap] Women in free software culture in India
http://wfs-india.dreamwidth.org/ There's a new let's-do-stuff-together group working to promote free software and free culture among women in India. Feel free to check out that page for more. It looks like they're working to hold an event on 20 May, in case you want to find out more or help! -- Sumana Harihareswara Engineering Community Manager Wikimedia Foundation ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Erik, et al Just a heads up that I have responded to your question at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Evidence_of_consent I invite all gender gap list members to come to Commons to read what is written, and get involved. Cheers, Russavia On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group. That's fine, will repost on your talk page. Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
(While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
to it.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. Further photographs
showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.
The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
---o0o---
File:Labret phallic
coddling.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
To quote a previous nomination: No model age, or consent given in source.
This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We need more
information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 19:36, 11 March 2013
(UTC)
- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any consent problem. Given
that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*. --
Infrogmation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation)
02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person
shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of
which describe her as the photographer's wife. --
Infrogmationhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation) 02:57,
12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
identifiable people in sexually explicit images?
--Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 12:10, 12 March 2013
(UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
please see {{2257 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:2257}}. For
the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
number of years (flickr
sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/overdrive_cz/sets/72157603896218916/),
some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
justifiably in my opinion
--moogsihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moogsi
(blah http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi) 18:31, 25
March 2013 (UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This
deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav
Faiglhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faigl.ladislav
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faigl.ladislav) 01:49,
1 April 2013 (UTC)
--
Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
photos. -*mattbuck http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbuck*
(Talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck
) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
---o0o---
The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
particularly relevant in this regard:
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put them on Flickr with
permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons), it's still desirable to
ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because
publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite
different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used
on Wikipedia.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html
---o0o---
In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr account
holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded to
Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a Commons user who specialised in uploading
sexual media from Flickr. I believe a similar role has more recently been
played by a different account, Handcuffed, after Max Rebo Band ceased
editing in early 2011.
No indication is given that the Flickr account holder or the woman depicted
are aware of and have consented to the Commons upload. Instead, it appears
it is assumed in Commons that if a man uploads sexual images of his current
or former wife (or a woman who is neither, but whom he describes as such)
to Flickr's adult section, this means that the woman in question is aware
of and has consented to the Flickr upload, and is happy for her likeness to
be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to be used in Wikipedia
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the
community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe
below is covered by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality.
If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop talking
on this list (and elsewhere) and make proposals on Commons instead for full
community input.
I hate to tell you this, but blowing hot air on this list or on other
websites will not bring about change. As I've stated, it's all about the
venue.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
(While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
to it.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. Further photographs
showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.
The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
---o0o---
File:Labret phallic
coddling.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
To quote a previous nomination: No model age, or consent given in
source. This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We
need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
Conti
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti|✉http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti
19:36,
11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any consent problem. Given
that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*.
-- Infrogmation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation (
talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation)
02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream,
person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos,
some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. --
Infrogmationhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation) 02:57,
12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
identifiable people in sexually explicit images?
--Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 12:10, 12 March
2013 (UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
please see {{2257 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:2257}}.
For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
number of years (flickr
sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/overdrive_cz/sets/72157603896218916/),
some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
justifiably in my opinion
--moogsihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moogsi
(blah http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi) 18:31, 25
March 2013 (UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This
deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav
Faiglhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faigl.ladislav
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faigl.ladislav)
01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
--
Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
photos. -*mattbuck http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbuck* (
Talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck) 02:00, 1
April 2013 (UTC)
---o0o---
The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
particularly relevant in this regard:
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put them on Flickr with
permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons), it's still desirable to
ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because
publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite
different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used
on Wikipedia.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html
---o0o---
In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr
account holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded
to Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Hey Fluff, Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons. I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that you don't have many contributions there ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and I am again urging you to come and join us. Are you up for that challenge? Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air on Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there. -Fluff ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my tits. Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I *am *comfortable speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who *are *willing to brave that environment. -Fluff On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Hey Fluff, Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons. I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that you don't have many contributions there ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and I am again urging you to come and join us. Are you up for that challenge? Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air on Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there. -Fluff ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
More seriously; the idea that someone either volunteers themselves to enter an environment they find disturbing and uncomfortable, or they're actively contributing to it being disturbing and uncomfortable, is (frankly) bullshit. Katherine is not responsible for the failure of Commons to produce much beyond pictures of genitals. If they continue to do so, while she continues to refuse to get involved, it will still not be her responsibility. Where I come from, we tend to take the attitude that people are inherently capable of change - that if people are contributing to an awkward, and uncomfortable, and narrowly-scoped environment, they can in fact, very occasionally, come to understand this and solve for it. Now: it's true that groups can be aided in this by people from outside who understand the problem entering to help. But it does not follow that anyone from outside the environment who notes that there is a problem be /mandated to participate/ and shamed if they refuse. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes, they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been *part of the solution!* We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the lions' teeth will be far too worn down to bite anyone else. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Fluff, I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely what I mean by this. That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes around my neck of the woods. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my tits. Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave that environment. -Fluff On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Fluff, Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons. I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that you don't have many contributions there (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and I am again urging you to come and join us. Are you up for that challenge? Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air on Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there. -Fluff ___ 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 ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
And I see that you are just as active (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience. It goes back to my response to Erik, that it is easier to sit back and be negative, than it is to get involved. In terms of this list specifically, you are basically preaching to the choir, and that's not going to change a thing. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes, they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been part of the solution! We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the lions' teeth will be far too worn down to bite anyone else. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Fluff, I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely what I mean by this. That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes around my neck of the woods. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my tits. Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave that environment. -Fluff On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Fluff, Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons. I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that you don't have many contributions there (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and I am again urging you to come and join us. Are you up for that challenge? Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, blowing hot air on Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there. -Fluff ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: And I see that you are just as active (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience. When I say that shaming is bad? Why, yes. Indeed, I have been a human with empathic abilities for several decades now. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
I feel *exactly* the same way, and I'm a Commons admin :( This speaks for me, too. -- Allie On May 12, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my tits. Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave that environment. -Fluff ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about. I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread something is going terribly wrong. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Indeed, we could have a twice or thrice daily thread on English Wikipedia about that very project, couldn't we? On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about. I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread something is going terribly wrong. ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals. I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000. But I do know that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis basically pales in comparison to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously? Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than ill-informed opinion. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about. I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread something is going terribly wrong. ___ 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
[Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Hi Theo, thank you for documenting my experience on meta, clearly a rookie mistake on my part, I hadn't revisited that page since and just now saw Sarah S note. I'm not giving up but I'm still figuring out the best way/area to contribute. I'll definitely reach out for guidance in navigating WMF :) G. White had a good/well articulated point too, specifically the .. framing our response as a whole-of-organisation *technology*, *policy and curation project *that is needed as a result of organisational growth. For a global organization of this scale that’s built primarily on people technology, the demands on a 170-employee must be enormous, so a holistic approach including technology, policy and curation is sensible. I can’t speak for the technology part I have little expertise there, but the reason I started this topic was to make the case for the “people’s” part – specifically around *accountability* and *representation* (women and others). This idea is not novel, far from it, but in my sense the latter is highly contingent on the former. it would seem this is a small part of a larger conversation. :) Message: 2 Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 09:59:33 +0530 From: Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap Message-ID: CAP9+R94g4Tj6bTOOXPMK6JkJ=lqxx4zv4dgfmiim9ebtzp4...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Sylvia I share some of your concerns and agree with your insightful observations. My comments are inline- On Sat, May 11, 2013, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid points, specially around privacy standards across countries/continents with a very different political and cultural makeup. And not something likely to change unless supremacy over wikipedia is given to one specific entity or state (nah). And losing our Freedom of Speech is not up for question. A coupe of thoughts on the comment that internet itself promotes anonymity that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world; internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and services, it's increasingly the place where 'untangle assets' get traded and human interactions take place (social/professional/commercial/financial/legal…). As we create our online trail, so is our personal profile. It's just a matter of time before we access everything about anyone with a simple email address (Google already pulls chunks of info from linkedin twitter, quora, etc to feed your G+ ID … and so does rapportive on email) It's already possible to spot the fake (ID) from the real. Yes, agreed. Those are some smart observations. I generally agree with your concerns above and also fear that as corporations get larger, our privacy, and its value might be getting smaller. As more devices get networked together, our digital footprint increases several folds- our phones, televisions, PCs and the information retained in them, all converge at some point. From a privacy stand-point, the future does seem to have a bleak outlook. I only have a minor disagreement with the last statement. As Thomas already pointed out, merely spotting a fake ID doesn't really have the same limitations. The entire system is predicated on the idea that the user in question chooses to be honest. The system is only effective for those who choose to be bound by it. A user can choose to provide a false email address, a false name, or a completely fictitious identity, and the only way to discern would be to physically visit them and ask to see their papers - which seems an even more draconian interpretation of the original thought. More and more you see these vetting mechanisms use cross pollination of personal data (i.e. signing up to Airbnb to book room with your Facebook account or google account). As far as anonymity is concerned I think we're beyond the 'point of no return'. This if from a North American perspective of course, but Europe will soon join us with different levels of implementation (the trade off is always Access vs Privacy and that's a though sell), and so will the rest of the planet. This sounds a bit Orwellian and a bit depressing I agree, and that's why it is SO VERY important to get Wikipedia and sister projects to thrive and grow and be a strong space, repository of human knowledge, human history, representing * all* voices. An insightful thought. We do trade ease vs. privacy more and more; perhaps not directly related, but we do have a unified login across all projects and languages - one login can be used automatically across all Wikimedia projects. And now, we have an upcoming initiative whereby remaining accounts across all projects would be unified under one login(SUL).
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue. The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an extraordinary collection of bird photos, among many others. It's worth a look.[1] The collection of freely licensed photos and other files at Commons is enormous, diverse, and useful. It is fairly well organized. Tons of useless junk gets weeded out. Hundreds of Wikimedia projects are supported in their various missions. All this happens in spite of there being a firehose of junk and copyright violations pointed at Commons every single day.[2] In spite of the fact that native speakers of many, many languages have to find ways to work together. In spite of the fact that people bring astonishingly varied projects and dreams and hopes and expectations to their work on Commons. What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to pitch in whatever way they see fit. Sorting through deletion nominations, filling requests to rename files, considering policy changes, and -- my personal favorite -- gradually amassing probably the best compendium of knowledge about certain aspects of international intellectual property law ever assembled in human history. When I hear people refer to this community as broken, I am amazed how out of touch they are with the reality and exquisite beauty of what Commons is. I can only assume they are overly influenced by a small number of edge cases that have come to their attention god knows how, and have generalized on those experiences to draw a fallacious conclusion. With all that said, of course, there's a tremendous amount of stuff that could and should be done to make Commons work better, to make it a more inviting and respectful environment, to make it more effective at advancing the Wikimedia mission. But one thing I am damn sure is not part of that solution is offhand insults directed at the community of dedicated volunteers who sustain and nurture Commons. Even if there are unhealthy social dynamics in the way the site functions (and there certainly are), I can't begin to imagine what theory of progress would rely on calling them out as a reflection of the overall health of the project. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JJ_Harrison [2] For instance, one recent day saw 48 nominations for deletion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2013/05/04 On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals. I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000. But I do know that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis basically pales in comparison to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously? Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than ill-informed opinion. Cheers, Russavia On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about. I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread something is going terribly wrong. ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Theo, thank you for documenting my experience on meta, clearly a rookie mistake on my part, I hadn't revisited that page since and just now saw Sarah S note. I'm not giving up but I'm still figuring out the best way/area to contribute. I'll definitely reach out for guidance in navigating WMF :) Glad to hear it Ma'am. Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Pete, The other day, Daniel Case referred on Commons to Commons' failure as a community to formulate a clear policy about posting identifiable nudes in private places without any indication as to whether they have consented to publication of those images under a licensing scheme that allows for nearly unlimited reproduction, distribution and modification of them. In reply you said, on Commons, Daniel, I have no doubt that it happens on our site all the time, and it's horrible, and it's something we should stop if we possibly can. Yet now, faced with those horrible things that happen on our site all the time, and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things Commons does. Shame on you. Oliver said a very stupid thing. Your seizing on it to deflect from the fact that the spirit and letter of the board resolution are routinely ignored in Commons looks like a devious gambit that presents us with a wonderful opportunity to distinguish those who pay mere lip service to the idea of putting those horrible things right from those who actually want to. As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law, a journalist friend of mine shared the following anecdote in discussion on Wikipediocracy a couple of days ago: ---o0o--- My latest magazine piece (here if anyone is interestedhttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0508/Provoking-peace-in-Indonesia) is about Ambon, Indonesia, a place few professional photographers go to anymore. The photo desk couldn't find anything decent to illustrate the story, and I suggested maybe trolling through Wikipedia commons for old Dutch public domain stuff. Photo editor cut me right off, told me they'd introduced a strict policy a few years ago of never user anything from commons because they invariably draw take-down notices and threats. Even in the case of pictures of public domain works (an old map for instance), no doing. He said the pictures themselves are frequently stolen from museums or government archives. The lawyers told us that commons has such a bad reputation for accurate licensing that a downstream user such as ourselves could ultimately be considered culpable if anyone chose to go that route. ---o0o--- There was a coda to that when I found that his publication actually have some Commons images on their website (though never in print editions, apparently). I gave an example from last week: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2013/0506/Are-South-Africans-backward-Zambia-s-white-VP-says-so It turns out it was a copyright violation: it is used on postzambia.com in two articles dated three months prior to the Commons upload, which was done by a drive-by account that never edited before or since. http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=25747 http://www.postzambia.com/post-print_article.php?articleId=26113 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GuyScott.jpegoldid=72608459 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Scottdiff=497500562oldid=497499217 And before someone clever comes along and suggests The Post probably took it from Commons and put it on the articles' web pages three months after publication, let us note that there are dozens of photographs of Mr Scott on postzambia.com, as you would expect for a Zambian newspaper, whereas Commons has exactly one: that one. So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may have lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site is riddled with copyright violations. Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful. Andreas On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote: I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue. The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an extraordinary collection of bird photos, among many others. It's worth a look.[1] The collection of freely licensed photos and other files at Commons is enormous, diverse, and useful. It is fairly well organized. Tons of useless junk gets weeded out. Hundreds of Wikimedia projects are supported in their various missions. All this happens in spite of there being a firehose of junk and copyright violations pointed at Commons every single day.[2] In spite of the fact that native speakers of many, many languages have to find ways to work together. In spite of the fact that people bring astonishingly varied projects and dreams and hopes and expectations to their work on Commons. What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to pitch in whatever way they see
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
I'll gladly pass your comment on, Russavia. How should the attribution read? At present it reads, Which way? Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons GNU Free Documentation License http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1106/From-a-distance-Syria-feels-like-Iraq-in-2004 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Andreas Please inform your kind colleague, that if they intend to bag Commons in future, they should ensure that their own house is in order first; for I now have the sad duty to inform you that they have used images from Commons with scant regard for licencing, and I have made a note of this on the image concerned. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Road_sign_Homs-Palmyra-Baghdad.jpg The lesson? Before accusing others of violating copyright (i.e. Commons) one should stop and think twice before they open mouth and insert foot. Regards, Russavia ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Pete, snip Yet now, faced with those horrible things that happen on our site all the time, and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things Commons does. Shame on you. Andreas, although I have no *personal* obligation to do so, I fully intend to continue working on these complex problems, much as I have been for a couple of years. The first step, in my view, is to develop a thorough understanding of how things are, while resisting the urge to resort to sweeping generalizations and finger-pointing. I invite you to join me. Oliver said a very stupid thing. If it appears my previous message was addressed to any one specific person -- it was not. It was intended to address the oft-repeated claim that Commons is broken, (or variants on that which cast a negative light on volunteer contributors to Commons) which a number of different people have said here and in other conversations. Your seizing on it to deflect from the fact that the spirit and letter of the board resolution are routinely ignored in Commons looks like a devious gambit that presents us with a wonderful opportunity to distinguish those who pay mere lip service to the idea of putting those horrible things right from those who actually want to. My position on the board resolution is basically that it was well-intentioned but not useful. I do not know whether or not this was the intent, but the phrasing of the resolution has nothing to say about nudity or anything related. If the board's intent was to have portraits of authors sitting at their desks, and the like, deleted in the absence of an explicit consent form of some kind, then the resolution is probably fine; but I sort of hope that's not what they meant to do. Drawing these lines is a thorny problem that, frustrating though it is, does not have an obvious solution I can see. As I have said before, I am happy to work with you or anyone on drafting a better policy. (I realize you offered a two word edit, but in my view this is not a substantive effort to engage with the problem, so it doesn't merit much pursuit. Still, I appreciate your making that effort.) As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law, snip tl;dr So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may have lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site is riddled with copyright violations. You know what other sites are riddled with copyright violations? YouTube, Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not perfect, but they are an asset. Meanwhile, I have worked toward the deletion of, I'd guess, about 20 possible copyright violations on Commons in the last week or so. Just one of many examples: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mary-williams.jpg How many have you reviewed? Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful. Indeed, aren't they? Try clicking the Random file button in the lefthand nav, and see how long it takes you to get to some kind of nudity or sexuality etc. I've done so hundreds of times in the last year or two, and have yet to find a file that struck me as potentially offensive. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Hi Pete, et al On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: You know what other sites are riddled with copyright violations? YouTube, Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not perfect, but they are an asset. I know of a site riddled with copyright violations. The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-recalls-in-US-history/Jarts-lawn-darts (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lawndarts.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0226/Were-those-the-bones-of-Cleopatra-s-murdered-sister (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ac_artemisephesus.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-recalls-in-US-history/Tylenol (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extra_Strength_Tylenol_and_Tylenol_PM.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/Slinky-1945 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006-02-04_Metal_spiral.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0621/Queen-of-Sheba-left-genetic-legacy-to-Ethiopians-study-finds (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saabaghiberti.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/diggin-it/2011/0630/Enjoy-the-fruit-from-the-serviceberry-tree (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amelanchier_alnifolia.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0702/A-newer-cheaper-Kindle-DX-will-it-matter (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Three_Generations_of_Kindles.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/Nintendo-Game-Boy-1989 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gameboy_Pocket.jpg) http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1221/Magnitude-7.4-earthquake-strikes-near-southern-Japanese-island-tsunami-warning-issued (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_location_map.svg) Sigh! Now I have to notify more contributors about their work basically being used in violation of their licencing by the very organisation, who supposedly, according to Dan Murphy, says Commons has a bad reputation for accurate licensing. It is most unfortunate that Dan Murphy has linked his employer to his idiotic bashing and trolling of Commons/Wikimedia projects. And it is little wonder that he didn't think that they would be interested in doing a guest blog for the troll Gregory Kohsyou know the old sayingthose in glass houses and all that. I wonder whether Andreas will publicly post this to the same thread on Wikipediocracy where he and others are trolling this very list. I won't hold my breathe! Cheers, Russavia ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Ryan Kaldari, 08/05/2013 07:09: On 5/7/13 9:57 AM, Russavia wrote: Frankly, I don't know why this is a feminist issue; rather than an issue of common sense. Agreed. I often find it is counter-productive to frame these sort of debates in terms of feminism/sexism/etc. [...] Sure. I'm not following this list that closely lately, but since when it's been hijacked by musty debates on nudity images? Is it the end of any hope in the usefulness of this list/group, or just a phase? I guess it's a pattern, we now entered the equivalent of the 1980s decadence of feminism. http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/pornography/background/CMC_article.html «Combining both sexual preference issues and political coercion concerns, Pat Califia sees the MacKinnon/Dworkin legal initiative as opening the door for suppression of gay rights and the gay life-style.» So in the next decade we may see better understanding. Is there something we can learn from the past to make this process less painful? Maybe: «Feminists should reconsider their role in advancing or obstructing the agendas of sex worker unions, and how their work on behalf of the many victims of sexual violence can be continued without perpetuating the marginalization of sex performers and providers.» http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/ Or as a student says: «In the course of my research, I do believe that the older feminist stance on pornography, as represented by the leaders of the heyday of the feminist anti-pornography movement, Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, is one that has been subsequently revealed to be both outdated and no longer useful for modern feminists. [...] I would argue in focusing on the evils of pornography, feminists are merely masking larger, deeper, and far more important issues.» http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1630 Nemo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
