Hi Yann -
Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very
nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations. As have
been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's MOTD on
that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one
of the five languages in which context for the video was provided.
Combining that fact with the fact Commons' has a history of not wanting to
comply with WMF board resolutions and the fact that the last time I was
heavily active on Commons we stumbled across a page where a couple sysops
were chatting about whether or not they could indef me for being disruptive
(when I was, pretty literally, only trying to enforce WMF board
resolutions,) I view bringing it up at a wider venue as absolutely
appropriate, especially given that without this discussion, I'd bet that
Fuzheado's and Eddie's ignored comments would still be, well, ignored,
rather than there now being a rather active discussion on that page.
Best,
Kevin Gorman
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Yann Forget <yannfo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this,
and that you are even not active on Commons.
If there is something which you don't like, come to Commons and
participate!
Sending you opinion accross without doing anything won't help...
Yann
2014-05-09 7:40 GMT+05:30 Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats
than
I usually do. I'm writing as a community
member, but also as someone
currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world
in a
department that is, at least in decent part,
aimed at ensuring that
injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own
opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of
getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view
doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively
employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the
liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to
operate
on German soil during the second world war, where
more than 50,000 people
lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already
changed
to a different piece of media.) For reasons that
baffle me a bit, the
video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of
corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not
stacks
of corpses.) To make things worse: because
Commons only supports open
video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons
frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual
video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up
corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if
they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption
of
the video does hyperlink to the English
Wikipedia's article about
Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact
that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be
disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of
great
historical significance, and it's a video
that absolutely needs to be on
Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have
appeared
on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not
like this. The same
video
is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley,
after the context behind
the
video is given and people are warned about the
nature of what they're
about
to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty
regularly seen people burst
into
tears upon watching the video that Commons links
today. Such video
evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an
incredibly
important role in understanding the past, but
what differentiates an
effort
to understand the past and a shock site can
pretty much be summed up as
contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some
degree
of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed
is a large part of the
difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front
page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the
"documenting history" one.
This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content
that,
while often appropriate material to be hosted by
Commons, has been framed
in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the
average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board
endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click
on
Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack
of corpses at
Buchenwald.
This is not the first time that Commons
administrators and bureaucrats
have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the
continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a
principle
makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia
Commons to my students or my
colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass
Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues
that
they do so. I don't want to (and given
another option will not) recommend
using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing
that
when they show up at it's front page they may
happen upon bad anime porn
or
a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I
can think of absolutely
no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a
video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a
stack
of corpses from a broader video.
If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM
world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public
as
a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff
like this. I know that
project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project,
but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other
projects,
I don't think discussion of this issue should
be limited to those who
frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that
meaningful
change cannot come from the current Commons
administration without
outside
pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I
will mention this discussion
on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment
can
do so here.
For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page,
here's
a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage
for a day - warning, it is,
well, corpses -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot…
Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of least
astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses?
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video
posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible
from
the video?
-----
Kevin Gorman
Wikipedian-in-Residence
American Cultures Program
UC Berkeley
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>