On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 15:43, Ryan Kaldari <
rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I have created the new consent template:
>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
>
> Here is an example of it in use:
>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Splitting_logs_with_a_gas_powered_log_splitter.JPG
>
> I also added a new section to the
> Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons guidelines encouraging people to
> use the new template.
>
> The wording of the template and guidelines don't mention anything about
> nudity or sexualization. This is on purpose. Hopefully, this will be a good
> first step to increasing the value and visibility of consent on Commons (in
> a way that builds consensus rather than warring factions).
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> On 9/12/11 5:49 PM, Toby Hudson wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> A draft template was actually made to augment the mostly recently voted
> [[COM:SEX]] proposal:
>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
>
> The proposal closed with no consensus*, but with a few modifications, the
> template could still be put to good use.
>
> Toby / 99of9
>
>
> *Mainly because it included a clause allowing admins to delete out of scope
> sexual content directly in a speedy deletion rather than setting up a
> deletion request. There actually wasn't too much opposition to requiring a
> statement of consent for identifiable sexual images, although there was
> some.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap