As it's currently drafted, I believe this approach is a complete
non-starter (for the reasons that Rillke and I described on the talk page:
).
I do think there is a possible version of this that would work, and think
it's a good avenue to pursue. But it seems to me that putting the resources
of technical implementation or legal evaluation in is very premature. What
we need is a revised proposal that will work without massively scaling up
the amount of staff time devoted to evaluating requests (practical concern)
or substantially shifting the editorial function of evaluating requests
from volunteer to staff (philosophical concern).
In the meantime, I've nominated a number of files for deletion on grounds
of lack of explicit consent, most of which have been successful. I believe
a solid collection of decisions based on real-life examples will do a lot
to inform any technical or procedural innovations.
I may blog about this soon, since I know this kind of approach ends up
being rather opaque to many of the people interested in the issue. I'll
inform the list when I get that posted.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Was there any more input from legal about this? The
page currently
has a note that legal is looking at it, but it seems Rilke is waiting
on that feedback.
Regards,
Sam
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Geoff Brigham <gbrigham(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi Lennart,
Thank you for calling this out. You raise an extremely valid point. I
have asked Luis to follow this project, so I am including him here so he
can
follow. I'm also including Michelle, who
historically has been dealing
with these kinds of reports for legal.
Appreciate your raising the issue,
Geoff
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson
<l_guldbrandsson(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 on SJ's comment, and I think Pete made some excellent points on the
> talk page. For instance: How would this affect the legal team's paid
staff
> time if we place a big red button under each
image? I have cc:ed Geoff
since
> he may not be aware of the question.
>
> But I would also like to say that this is very well worth checking out.
> This is the template that is suggested right now (feel free to edit):
>
>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:ReportAbuse
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lennart Guldbrandsson
>
> Personlig blogg
> Presentation
> @aliasHannibal
>
> Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
>
> "Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri
tillgång
> till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt
mål."
> Jimmy Wales
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:58:20 -0400
> > From: meta.sj(a)gmail.com
> > To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons] "Flag this image" prototype
> >
> > Interesting. Thanks for the heads-up! SJ
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Sorry to those who are tired of the image/consent discussions, but
> > > just wanted to bring this to this list's attention as well.
> > >
> > > I'm tagging this thread with "[Commons]" and suggest others
do the
> > > same in future to make it easier for people who do not want to
discuss
> > > Commons or who feel inundated with
the subject matter to filter
these
> > > messages. Also, if you're using
Google Mail, you can "mute" a thread
> > > (under the "More" options after you open the thread) and you
won't
see
> > > any future responses in your inbox
-- other email clients have
similar
> > > features.
> > >
> > > Quick notes about an interesting development:
> > >
> > > * User:Rillke on Commons has started prototyping a gadget that could
> > > be used to simplify reporting of various issues with images with a
> > > simple "Flag this image" workflow. This discussion is on the
Commons
> > > Village Pump.
> > >
> > > I've brought that discussion to the attention of WMF legal. Note:
It's
> > > not like the current workflow is
completely broken -- the
> > > Commons:Contact_us flow is actually pretty good -- but a nicer UI
and
> > > more prominent placement could
help. The current workflow also does
> > > not provide an option for consent issues.
> > >
> > > * I've summarized the current state of his prototype here:
> > >
> > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reporting_abuse
> > >
> > > On the talk page I've also recommended that consent to be displayed
in
> > > an image be considered in the
reporting options.
> > >
> > > I'm sure Rillke would appreciate any active development help with
the
> >
feature, as well as continued feedback and encouragement (WikiLove?)
> > which is crucial for volunteer motivation.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Erik
> >
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6750
gbrigham(a)wikimedia.org
California Registered In-House Counsel
This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in
it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and
let
us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I
may only serve as an
attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal
advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or
staff
members in their personal capacity.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap