ok - well to try and take sj's sage advice, and move this conversation
forward, I'll focus on one smaller aspect of the bigger issue.
Commons currently has quite a few photographs of people in various states of
undress on beaches. The permission of the subject's for this material, for
example, an
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
This is under understanding the whole issue is not covered by BLP policy
(I assume if a vagina is shown but the face is not this is not a BLP
issue).
I would feel better if we got model rights whenever using
Last post on this thread.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many
which don't indicate that the subject
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
In my opinion the best system would be like this:
We create a software measure to apply tags to specific content. ...
While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
we can create a simple solution by
Hoi,
We create nothing because other people will have to write it.
When you look at many crucifixes, you will see human suffering in a really
stark way. This is deeply troubling to some people and others will say that
it depicts the suffering of Jezus on our behalf. Both have a conflicting
point
Hoi,
When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them. It is a
cop out to continue and say that it is *others *that can decide that they do
not want to be informed, that they are willing that other people are at risk
because essential images are not readily available. It is a cop
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them. It is a
cop out to continue and say that it is *others *that can decide that they
do
not want to be informed, that they are willing
Hoi,
The argument is about not safe for work, it is about not showing these
pictures because you tag them as such. Consequently medical conditions,
particularly those that have a sexual dimension will be affected.
Explain to me why my point of view is not valid AND explain why these images
are
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual
content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 6:26 PM
The issue of safe for work browsing is a distraction, not a core problem.
I don't think we often figure explicit images prominently on mainspace
articles with unrelated or tenuously connected subjects.
More importantly, no one has argued that [[Herpes]] should be text-only.
It's tangents like
2009/4/21 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru:
I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are
too
bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who
wants
to get to the template can click on show link. Same with the pictures:
as one solution, one
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
On a tangential note, I've also been looking at various governmental, and
NGO 'codes of conduct', some of which recommend things like accurate record
keeping on model information, ensuring users confirm that they
heh - as I say in the essay (and the noticeboard) - oh the irony!
My hands are indeed filthy - although I never went blind ;-) - and yes, we
still need to talk about this stuff.
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
How about 'unclean hands'.
In the recent en.wp discussion that you mention, you added an
Hi,
As has been mentioned elsewhere in comments on your writings, you have
good ideas which aren't directly related to nudity or sexual content.
1) respect human subjects of photos and other media
1a) get explicit model consent, both for models who are 'many meters
away' and for significant
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual
content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 3:39 AM
2009/4/20 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com:
I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one
standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all
cultures? These things are not absolute values and each community needs to
work out what standards
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual
content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 3:39 AM
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/20 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com:
I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one
standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all
cultures? These things are
Hello all,
Those of you foolish enough to watchlist the english wikipedia's admin.s
noticeboard, or Jimmy's talk page, might have noticed a broo ha ha this last
weekend concerning nude pictures on userpages. Basically, a user has an
image of a shaven vagina on their userpage with the caption 'No
19 matches
Mail list logo
