Well I was thinking of only tagging pictures that are controversial, but of course you could tag everything, I suppose. It would be simpler to tag categories, that way you have semi-automatic tagging of pictures of the top-tier (the Obama-tier and above) without having any problematic names in the description, and anything below that, well, we probably don't have those pictures in categories anyway, and we also don't really care if the names are on there or not,
2013/12/15, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>: > Hoi, > I am really interested in how you think this will work out when Commons is > going to use Wikidata. The planning is that in half a year the Wikidata > team will start work on implementing something for Commons. It will include > tagging. So for me a picture will be tagged and indicate who is in a > picture. Consequently a person can be found in any language as long as you > get the spelling right. > > As it is there are plenty of people of questionable notability in Wikidata > and at the same time there are plenty notable people from many countries > lacking. If the same criteria for notability for Americans is used for the > rest of the world... the number of people known to Wikidata will grow a lot > bigger. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 15 December 2013 10:24, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Craig, Phoebe, and Yaroslav, those are all very good points. Until >> Google improves its image-recognition software, most photos appearing >> in google images are triggered by text in the image description. It >> should be easy to tag problematic image desriptions, especially when >> more people than the subject are recognizable in the photo. Certainly >> identification of people in the text is completely unnecessary if they >> are non-notable, so introducing "tiers of notability" might be an >> interesting idea (though someone marginally notable in the US is >> probably not notable elsewhere and the other way around) >> >> I still think that we need more discovery tools to allow people (BLP >> subjects and their extended contacts) to find out more about the text >> or photo they are interested in. We should do a lot more on complaint >> prevention, because as Phoebe said, we just don't have enough time to >> handle the complaints. >> >> 2013/12/15, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>: >> > On 15 December 2013 02:54, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin >> >> <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote: >> >> > Hi Jane, >> >> > >> >> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP >> >> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia >> users >> >> >> swing their weight around" >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the >> >> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers. >> All >> >> ten >> >> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation >> >> > would >> >> > be >> >> > inadequate. >> >> >> >> The list of problems becomes even longer for images. >> >> >> >> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about >> >> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography. This >> >> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such >> >> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion >> >> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people. It >> >> should, but ... >> >> >> > >> > Part of the problem in my view is that there is no notability >> requirements >> > for identifiable persons appearing in images. While in the great >> majority >> > of cases this is not really a problem, it does lead to very problematic >> > things like pictures of people in states of undress, engaging in sexual >> > activity, or doing something else their employer, family or local >> community >> > might not be okay with, without any evidence of ongoing consent for that >> > image to remain available. The only mechanism for getting rid of these >> is >> > effectively for the subject of the image to email a stranger, provide >> > evidence that they're the person in the image, ask nicely for it to be >> > taken down, and hope to hell that the person is reasonable and doesn't >> play >> > the "It's educational and under a free licence, sorry!" card. This is >> > an >> > issue that needs to be addressed because the status quo is entirely >> > unsatisfactory. >> > >> > Of course, the immediate reaction on Commons to this seems to be >> > Wikilawyering as to whether the resolution applies to galleries or not. >> > Given that the BoT's intent is clearly that this should apply to >> > everything, everywhere on all Wikimedia projects, this doesn't fill me >> with >> > a great deal of hope that the Commons community as a whole is capable of >> > adequately dealing with this. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Craig >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
