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
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
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:
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.
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
There's a list of missing women scientists over at WikiProject Women Scientists and another at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsp13/Biographical_Dictionary_of_Women_in…. We are still missing a ton of women scientists, and they are usually perfect candidates for DYK! (unsubtle plug was unsubtle...)
But seriously, that's another good resource for missing articles on notable women.
Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.
----- Reply message -----
From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Ole Palnatoke Andersen" <ole(a)palnatoke.org>
Subject: [Gendergap] Crazy big list of red links about women subjects
Date: Wed, May 29, 2013 3:33 AM
Ole Palnatoke Andersen, 28/05/2013 23:40:
> Wow. I copied the list to Danish Wikipedia (but didn't save - only
> preview), and *one* link turned blue there:
it.wiki has several but usually existing elsewhere too... except
But luckily also not models:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Mujawayo (this is an Italian
Gendergap mailing list
An interesting blog post about sex ratio data from Wikipedia and Wikidata:
Interestingly, Wikidata only allows assigning a 'sex' to a person, not a
I figure it's high time to start a positive (or call to action oriented)
focus thread again that is focused on empowering women on this list to
Women - and those who identify as - what have you been editing lately?
I've been working hard at building my "to do" lists for the crowdsourcing
aspect of my World Digital Library project. I miss having time to edit and
write larger articles, but, that isn't in the cards yet.
On the flipside, I've been helping out at Articles for Creation again. We
have a backlog of over 1000!!!
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
I'm wondering what the thinking is among list members concerning photos depicting more militant feminist protest activity.
I've been searching for images on Flickr that relate to feminism worldwide, and selecting some to copy to Commons. I've come across a few that are definitely in the radical end of the spectrum. The photos themselves range from "could be offensive to some people" (e.g. topless demonstrators) to "fully intended to be offensive to some/many people" (e.g. anti-male graffiti, posters dealing with menstruation).
Now, it's one thing to discuss militancy in an article, it's another to see photos. They have documentary value, and I'm of the mind to go ahead and add them to the Radical feminism article. Since they were intended to shock, though, I do hesitate to do it.
Would they serve an article well, or detract? Opinions?