On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Ryan
Kaldari
<rkaldari@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I'm both a long-time admin on Commons and an OTRS volunteer.
I've been
wanting to chime in on this thread, but haven't really had the
time. I'm
worried though that I'm about to see history repeat itself, so
I want to
quickly share a few thoughts...
First, the issue of consent on Commons has been passionately
debates for
years, and has a long and tortured history. Before proposing
anything,
please make yourself familiar with the previous discussions
and their
outcomes. Most notably the discussions surrounding these
pages:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
The point I can't emphasize enough is that if you put forward
any
proposal on Commons that implies there is anything possibly
problematic
about sexual or nude images in any way, you will be completely
shut
down. The only way you have any chance to shape the policies
and
guidelines on Commons is if you approach the problem from a
sex/nudity-agnostic point of view. Here's a good example of
what NOT to do:
I think a general statement that permission of the subject is
desirable
/ necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing
-
thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk)
22:46, 8
January 2009 (UTC)
If the horse was beyond dead in January 2009, imagine where it
is now.
That said, there is still lots of room for improvement. In
particular...
Commons already requires consent for photos of identifiable
people in
private spaces. In addition, many countries require consent
even for
public spaces. (Take a look at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons#Country_specific_consent_requirements.)
The way this requirement works, however, is completely passive
and
reactive - there is no impetus to proactively assert consent,
only to
assert it when an image is challenged. This is a very
inefficient
system. There are no templates or categories or anything to
deal with
consent on Commons (apart from Template:Consent which is tied
up with
the tortured history of Commons:Sexual_content and can't be
used currently).
I don't think it would be incredibly controversial to
introduce a very
simple consent template that was specifically tailored to the
existing
policies and laws. This would make things easier for Commons
reusers,
professional photographers who use model releases, and admins
who have
to constantly deal with these issues. In short, it would be a
win for
everyone and it would introduce the idea of thinking
proactively about
consent on Commons in a way that isn't threatening to people
who are
concerned about censorship.
As soon as I have some free time, I'll whip up such a template
and throw
it into the water. It'll be interesting to see how it is
received.
Ryan Kaldari
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap