WMF projects should be a leader in assuring that people's human rights are enforced. Right now WMF policies do not reflect best practices. But the WMF Board and staff are moving in the right direction.

The problem is that the a large part of the community holds the idea of free speak as a higher value than protecting the rights of people who might be harmed.

The solution is more discussion where people can be educated about all the ramifications of hosting controversial content. And also bringing more people into the community who hold a more moderate view about the importance of free speech, and who will be better able to make more balanced decisions when we must weigh all the differing ideals and ethical considerations.

There are some essays around, I think. Read one recently about hosting images of people. Another one would be good on the topic of voyeurism.

Sydney


On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder whether it would be worth developing a guideline, or just
writing an essay about it on Commons. Trouble is, I know so little
about how the Commons works -- I don't even know how to find their
list of policies.

My thinking is that voyeurism is increasingly becoming a criminal
offence, and an essay about it might help to identify the kinds of
images we should be wary of uploading. For example, in the UK, a
person commits a criminal offence if:

"(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,

"(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for
the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B
doing the act, and

"(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with
that intention."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

The problem with all of this on Wikimedia is the anonymity factor.
People could say "I am the model and I hereby give consent." I don't
know how we get round that.

Sarah

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:45, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the appropriate
> permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has not obvious signs
> of being a copyright violation. People have been in disagreement about
> whether images that are "controversial content" should be be held to a
> higher level of scrutiny. Some people say that we are be biased if we
> require a higher level of scrutiny for images of naked people. I disagree,
> but think that we really need to have a higher level of scrutiny for all
> images with identifiable people.  By requiring model consent, we would solve
> a large part of the problems with the images on Commons.
>
> Sydney Poore