Thanks all for your opinions, suggestions and advice. I was away due to a
personal emergency; just back home today. I read all the responses above,
including Pierre-selim's advise on how to handle such cases in future. I
agree, and my intention was not to ignore in Commons discussions and make a
"commons is broken" rant as Pleclown complained above. I was in the midst
of switching off my computer and run as one of my relative just admitted in
hospital. The repeated revert on that page increased my blood pressure and
I forwarded it to here as I know I can't participate in that thread for at
least a few days.
I disagree with Pierre-selim's opinion that "In the end I just think we are
having this thread because of the topic being related to nudity (which is
clearly a not consensual topic in our communities, probably because it is
cultural) and not really because of any real breach of privacy." As a
husband of a woman who had undergone TAH-BSO at the age of twenty (ten
years before our marriage), I'm well aware of the value of our reproductive
system and the importance of educating common people about the
healthy maintenance of them. I know how photographs are more helpful than
graphical illustrations in some occasions. But we should be more careful on
verifying whether the subjects are fully consented in such cases. Moreover,
there is no need to reveal the identity of non notable persons in such
cases.
(
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smoking_Crack.jpg is another
similar case where no relation to nudity; but clear real breach of privacy.
There people even tried to revert Odder. Finally I had to bring it at AN to
revedelete other versions. I still believe such a picture is not good for
our projects as we have no evidence of consent and the person can be
easily identifiable from the external links.)
Now I (glad to) see Russavia did some homework and made an alert to another
crat and (as a result) most links are removed. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Paedophile_advoca…
).
Regards,
Jee
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Chris Keating
<chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Though in this case it does seem that Commons has
given sound advice that
any photos submitted should be accompanied by a model release.
If only more photos on Commons had model releases!
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Keating
<chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
@Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's
decision. But I've visited the linked website
(NSFW) and one can only
assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication
of
said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused.
I don't think "there are pictures of someone on the internet" can in any
circumstances imply "that person has given their consent for those
pictures
to be on the internet".
Even if it is clear that the person concerned gave permission for the
picture to be taken, that is no evidence that they have given any consent
for those pictures to be circulated.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>