Re: [Gendergap] University of Sydney women's #wikibomb

[Toby Hudson]

Yes, that is very open and forthright.

"I have not and will not make edits on articles or materials related to the
institutions where I work, have worked, or may conceivably work at in the
future"

If interpreted broadly that would be a difficult statement to live up to
(do articles about alumni count? how about topics where the institution has
a research strength? is she committing to never use AWB or similar tools to
make minor fixes in bulk to whole categories of article which could include
affiliations?)

Toby

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Roberta Wedge <
roberta.we...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Re COI for academics: I've recently come across Melodee Beals, a senior
> lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University. Her userpage
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhbeals> strikes me as an exemplar of
> one way for academics to engage with Wikipedia. She has given thought and
> space to making a declaration of interests, spelling out how she intends to
> handle affiliations and her understanding of self-promotion.
>
> Declaration of interest: Dr Beals is the colleague of a friend of mine.
>
> Roberta
>
> 
> *Roberta Wedge*
> *Gender Gap Project, **Wikimedia UK*
> roberta.we...@wikimedia.org.uk
> 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> +44 (0)20 7065 0921
>
> Wikimedia UK is the British chapter of a global movement. We support, but
> do not control, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and
> other related Wikimedia projects.
> Wikimedia UK is both a limited company (Registered No. 6741827) and a
> charity (Registered No.1144513).
>
> Visit wikimedia.org.uk <http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/> and @wikimediauk
>
> On 30 October 2014 10:58, Toby Hudson  wrote:
>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University_of_Sydney_Wikibomb
>>
>> This is going to be big.  There are 39 signed up (mostly female academics
>> and students), but we are expecting nearer 100.
>>
>> How Wikipedians can help:
>>
>> We will have a decent number of experienced editors on site, but we will
>> be stretched. Anyone who can provide online support 03:00-07:00 UTC
>> tomorrow (Friday) would be much appreciated. Please add your name to the
>> project page with a note so that we know who we can call on. Here's some
>> ways you can help:
>>
>>1. Any sandbox started by a wikibomb participant should be added to 
>> *Category:University
>>of Sydney Wikibomb 2014
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Sydney_Wikibomb_2014>* 
>> so
>>that we can all find it.
>>2. Monitor *These Related Changes
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University_of_Sydney_Wikibomb>*
>>  to
>>look out for editors having trouble.
>>3. Write (kind) sandbox_talk page comments if you see *promotional
>>language*. It seems that some participants are intending to write
>>articles about their friend/colleague/boss. The organizing team now all
>>understand how much COI <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI> 
>> editing
>>is discouraged, but I'm afraid academics are harder to herd than cats. We
>>are at least trying to ensure that everyone declares their employer on
>>their userpage, and declares any COI they have on the article talk.
>>4. Assess articles' *readiness to move into mainspace* (also post a
>>note on the talk page). Experienced Wikipedians will do these moves, but
>>for COI and general stress relief, it would be good to have third party
>>eyes over it.
>>5. *Categorize, prettify, wikidatify, wikiprojectify* ({{WP Australia
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP_Australia>}}{{WP Biography
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP_Biography>}} etc) any
>>articles that do make it into mainspace. We will not have time to
>>concentrate on any of these things.
>>6. *Ping me (99of9 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99of9>)* or
>>another involved Wikipedian if you spot any problems.
>>7. Publicise on *Twitter (#Wikibomb)* with a link to the project page
>>
>> Thanks for helping!
>>
>> Toby/99of9
>>
>> ___
>> 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] University of Sydney women's #wikibomb

[Toby Hudson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University_of_Sydney_Wikibomb

This is going to be big.  There are 39 signed up (mostly female academics
and students), but we are expecting nearer 100.

How Wikipedians can help:

We will have a decent number of experienced editors on site, but we will be
stretched. Anyone who can provide online support 03:00-07:00 UTC tomorrow
(Friday) would be much appreciated. Please add your name to the project
page with a note so that we know who we can call on. Here's some ways you
can help:

   1. Any sandbox started by a wikibomb participant should be added to
*Category:University
   of Sydney Wikibomb 2014
   *
so
   that we can all find it.
   2. Monitor *These Related Changes
   
*
to
   look out for editors having trouble.
   3. Write (kind) sandbox_talk page comments if you see *promotional
   language*. It seems that some participants are intending to write
   articles about their friend/colleague/boss. The organizing team now all
   understand how much COI
 editing
   is discouraged, but I'm afraid academics are harder to herd than cats. We
   are at least trying to ensure that everyone declares their employer on
   their userpage, and declares any COI they have on the article talk.
   4. Assess articles' *readiness to move into mainspace* (also post a note
   on the talk page). Experienced Wikipedians will do these moves, but for COI
   and general stress relief, it would be good to have third party eyes over
   it.
   5. *Categorize, prettify, wikidatify, wikiprojectify* ({{WP Australia
   }}{{WP Biography
   }} etc) any
   articles that do make it into mainspace. We will not have time to
   concentrate on any of these things.
   6. *Ping me (99of9 )* or
   another involved Wikipedian if you spot any problems.
   7. Publicise on *Twitter (#Wikibomb)* with a link to the project page

Thanks for helping!

Toby/99of9
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list

[Toby Hudson]

I didn't find a men only list, but their list of powerful people looks
close enough. (!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/powerpeople

I'll leave the ratings until after Andrew re-rates them ;-), but already
there's a male redlink at #36 most powerful - interesting gap.

Toby



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Toby Hudson  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> Absolutely!  Please do.
> Yes, it was nice to see some FA and GAs in the mix.  Maybe we should
> compare a list of 100 most powerful men?
> Toby
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Gray 
> wrote:
>
>> Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen
>> of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?)
>>
>> On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from
>> this as well:
>>
>> Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole,
>> approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of
>> articles is perhaps ten times better than the average...
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker  wrote:
>> > While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant
>> > improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot
>> of
>> > those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening
>> > improvements.
>> >
>> > Risker
>> >
>> >
>> > On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly
>> check
>> >> out our articles on these women.  The good news is that we have an
>> article
>> >> for each of them.  The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim
>> if
>> >> these are truly the 100 most powerful women.
>> >>
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen
>> >>
>> >> Toby/99of9
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the
>> >>> job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a
>> top
>> >>> priority.
>> >>>
>> >>> Risker/Anne
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Andrew Gray
>>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list

[Toby Hudson]

Hi Risker,

Of course you are right, but that is true across the encylopedia, so the
relative abundances are probably comparable.

Sorting by "category" is interesting.  We're doing particularly poorly for
the women in business or technology, not too bad for women in politics, and
pretty well for female celebrities.

Toby



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Risker  wrote:

> While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant
> improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot of
> those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening
> improvements.
>
> Risker
>
>
> On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson  wrote:
>
>> I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check
>> out our articles on these women.  The good news is that we have an article
>> for each of them.  The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim if
>> these are truly the 100 most powerful women.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen
>>
>> Toby/99of9
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>>>  This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the
>>> job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
>>> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/
>>>
>>> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top
>>> priority.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list

[Toby Hudson]

Hi Andrew,
Absolutely!  Please do.
Yes, it was nice to see some FA and GAs in the mix.  Maybe we should
compare a list of 100 most powerful men?
Toby


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Gray 
wrote:

> Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen
> of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?)
>
> On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from
> this as well:
>
> Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole,
> approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of
> articles is perhaps ten times better than the average...
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker  wrote:
> > While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant
> > improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot of
> > those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening
> > improvements.
> >
> > Risker
> >
> >
> > On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson  wrote:
> >>
> >> I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check
> >> out our articles on these women.  The good news is that we have an
> article
> >> for each of them.  The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim
> if
> >> these are truly the 100 most powerful women.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen
> >>
> >> Toby/99of9
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the
> >>> job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
> >>> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a
> top
> >>> priority.
> >>>
> >>> Risker/Anne
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list

[Toby Hudson]

I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check
out our articles on these women.  The good news is that we have an article
for each of them.  The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim if
these are truly the 100 most powerful women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen

Toby/99of9



On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker  wrote:

> This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the job:
> being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/
>
> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top
> priority.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> ___
> 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

[Toby Hudson]

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  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 
> 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 
> > 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, 

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

[Toby Hudson]

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 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
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] High-heeled shoes as a case study

[Toby Hudson]

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 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:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labace_%2824%29.jpg) I was going to
> nominate it for just being out of scope because Commons is not a repository
> for snapshots.
>
> ;)
>
> Asking questions like this on Commons-L isn't very pleasant, so thanks for
> helping!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sarah
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Toby Hudson  wrote:
>
>> I've made a start on refactoring this category according to the principle
>> of least surprise.  Feel free to do this whenever you notice a "surprising"
>> image in a mundane category.
>>
>> Regarding consent, if any of the identifiable women are in private
>> locations, 
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PEOPLE<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes>applies,
>>  and the uploader should state that permission was obtained to take
>> & publish the image.  If this has not been done, please either contact the
>> uploader or propose deletion.
>>
>> Toby Hudson  /  99of9
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
>>
>>> Category:High-heeled shoes is an excellent example of the current problem
>>> WMF projects are having with creating and disseminating content that is
>>> unbiased.
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes
>>>
>>> This category is different that most all the other categories about
>>> footwear because it contains many images that are not primarily examples of
>>> high-heeled shoes. Most other categories about footwear contain mostly
>>> images of shoes or the lower leg(s) with a shoe or shoes.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There are random women who are wearing shoes and are mixed in with the
>>> porn-stars and strip-tease dancers. These women are being objectified and
>>> sexualized without their consent because of the way the the images are
>>> displayed in  the category. See Wikipedia article on Sexualization
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization for a description of the
>>> term.
>>>
>>> In each language that has Wikipedia articles about high-heeled shoes, the
>>> content is about a type of footwear, s

Re: [Gendergap] High-heeled shoes as a case study

[Toby Hudson]

I've made a start on refactoring this category according to the principle of
least surprise.  Feel free to do this whenever you notice a "surprising"
image in a mundane category.

Regarding consent, if any of the identifiable women are in private
locations, 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PEOPLE<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes>applies,
and the uploader should state that permission was obtained to take
& publish the image.  If this has not been done, please either contact the
uploader or propose deletion.

Toby Hudson  /  99of9


On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> Category:High-heeled shoes is an excellent example of the current problem
> WMF projects are having with creating and disseminating content that is
> unbiased.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes
>
> This category is different that most all the other categories about
> footwear because it contains many images that are not primarily examples of
> high-heeled shoes. Most other categories about footwear contain mostly
> images of shoes or the lower leg(s) with a shoe or shoes.
>
> 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.
>
> There are random women who are wearing shoes and are mixed in with the
> porn-stars and strip-tease dancers. These women are being objectified and
> sexualized without their consent because of the way the the images are
> displayed in  the category. See Wikipedia article on Sexualization
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization for a description of the term.
>
> In each language that has Wikipedia articles about high-heeled shoes, the
> content is about a type of footwear, so the links in the articles that lead
> to commons are directing people to nudity or sexual content that they would
> not anticipate. There are other problems with some of the images, including
> unclear consent for the image to be uploaded by the subject of the image.
>
> I see this category as a concrete example of systemic bias coming from
> having a male dominated editing community.
>
> Leather boots is only other category that I found that also has a large
> number of images of people. It also contain a disproportionate number of
> images of women who are nude or in sexually provocative poses.
>
> I think that it is important to continue to talk about these issues in the
> hope that more people with became educated about the problems with with our
> current methods to collect, categorize, and disseminate content.
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
>
>
> ___
> 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