Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high that it requires OTRS in a straightforward case like this.

It seems to me the board resolution covers this case, but was disregarded. I'm curious to hear other perspectives.

-Pete


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Katherine Casey <fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So a "good outcome" to my mind would have been asking the person to verify that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the image. "In scope", which is the content of the actual close there, is pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue.

Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's featured - we should not be hosting it.

-Fluff


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a (presumably) private setting in a library:


The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that compelling enough.

What would be a good outcome in this case?

And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones? That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't getting us closer to an answer.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap