On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Samuel Klein
<meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
I would tackle this at the level of deletion templates.
Flickrwashing is a known widespread source of copyvios.
1. There should be a template specifically for that class of deletion.
2. This should be added as a new reason for deletion to the
appropriate policy page.
A Flickr-imported image whose original uploader has had their account
removed, and which has no other indication of copyright status, should
be eligible for deletion. This can be counterweighted by
* significant educational value, e.g., active use (as the best
available image) in multiple articles
* significant reason to believe the image was originally posted to
Flickr by its author [based on metadata or descriptions on the Flickr
account at the time of import, or other online sleuthing]
If either of these is true, we can take a risk and wait for a takedown
notice. But we should be as harsh on getting copyright confirmation
for these images as we are for images obviously uploaded by their
creator or someone who knows the creator, who fail to choose the right
license template.
SJ
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Just a follow up...
>>
>> It doesn't even matter, anymore. Some of these images have been nominated
>> before, and been kept. They all just keep stating I don't know the policies
>> and that they are in scope. Perhaps it all is and perhaps I really am an
>> idiot who just can't comprehend the policies, despite reading things
>> multiple times.
>>
>> I think the policy about Flickr accounts being deleted and it doesn't
>> matter is one of the stupidest ideas. Two of the images I nominated have
>> incorrect licenses and were still uploaded from Flickr and "okayed" by a
>> bot, despite the Flickr account stating they are all rights reserved. I also
>> don't get how a deleted Flickr account can still be considered a "source."
>>
>> Commons is really good at making a smart person feel stupid and like a
>> gnat.
>>
>> -Sarah
>
>
> Sarah
>
> I know that some of the images have been nominated before and kept, and some
> of the images have to be repeatedly re-categorized, too. I get frustrated
> and at times feel that it is a time sink with no end in sight.
>
> That is the reason that I wrote to the mailing list to discuss the matter as
> an community issue. I have come to believe that is rooted in the culture
> values of the WMF editors who add loads of these images to commons.
>
> We can't walk away from the issue because it is too important. We need to
> discuss it so that we can better understand why that we are having trouble
> addressing the issue in a way that is promotes an inclusive editing
> environment.
>
> Sydney
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Toby Hudson <tobyyy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sarah,
>>>
>>> The principle of least surprise is roughly the following:
>>> People who go to a category/gallery/encyclopedia-article expecting
>>> something (shoes) should not be surprised by something they may find
>>> offensive (naked women wearing shoes).
>>>
>>>
>>> One way to ensure this is to make clearly labelled subcategories for the
>>> potentially offensive material. In this case, I made a subcategory:
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes
>>> and within that
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women_wearing_high-heeled_shoes
>>>
>>> so everyone who visits that category knows exactly what they're going to
>>> see in advance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding your Flickr question: Whether the account is deleted or not
>>> doesn't usually change whether or not the picture is in scope. But deleted
>>> accounts do make the copyright status more questionable. At the time of
>>> upload, the bot would check that the license is correct, but that doesn't
>>> eliminate the possibility that the Flickr user is uploading copyright
>>> violations to their Flickr account ("Flickrwashing"). If there are other
>>> likely signs of copyright violation, I would nominate for deletion (as I did
>>> for the other image mentioned in this thread
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Young_girl_with_see-through_tops_and_shorts.jpg).
>>> When the account is still active, you can also check the rest of the Flickr
>>> user's contributions to get a good sense of whether they are really the
>>> author of the photos they're uploading.
>>>
>>> Snapshots aren't necessarily out of scope just because they're snapshots,
>>> they're sometimes realistically useful for an educational purpose.
>>>
>>> Toby
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Toby -
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be a n00b but, can you explain what you mean by "refactoring
>>>> this category according to the principle of least surprise?"
>>>>
>>>> For anyone else - if you find an image that has been uploaded by a
>>>> Flickr bot, and the Flickr account has been deleted what do you do? I notice
>>>> a large portion of images like this are often snapshot uneducational photos
>>>> (here is an example:
>>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labace_%2824%29.jpg) I was going to
>>>> nominate it for just being out of scope because Commons is not a repository
>>>> for snapshots.
>>>>
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>> Asking questions like this on Commons-L isn't very pleasant, so thanks
>>>> for helping!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Toby Hudson <tobyyy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've made a start on refactoring this category according to the
>>>>> principle of least surprise. Feel free to do this whenever you notice a
>>>>> "surprising" image in a mundane category.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding consent, if any of the identifiable women are in private
>>>>> locations, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PEOPLE applies, and the
>>>>> uploader should state that permission was obtained to take & publish the
>>>>> image. If this has not been done, please either contact the uploader or
>>>>> propose deletion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Toby Hudson / 99of9
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Category:High-heeled shoes is an excellent example of the current
>>>>>> problem WMF projects are having with creating and disseminating content that
>>>>>> is unbiased.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This category is different that most all the other categories about
>>>>>> footwear because it contains many images that are not primarily examples of
>>>>>> high-heeled shoes. Most other categories about footwear contain mostly
>>>>>> images of shoes or the lower leg(s) with a shoe or shoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The number of images in Category:High-heeled shoes is higher than most
>>>>>> categories about footwear. Approximately one- third of the images are of
>>>>>> full body shots of attractive females who are wearing high heeled shoes, and
>>>>>> a significant number of them are nude or posed in sexually provocative
>>>>>> positions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are random women who are wearing shoes and are mixed in with the
>>>>>> porn-stars and strip-tease dancers. These women are being objectified and
>>>>>> sexualized without their consent because of the way the the images are
>>>>>> displayed in the category. See Wikipedia article on Sexualization
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization for a description of the term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In each language that has Wikipedia articles about high-heeled shoes,
>>>>>> the content is about a type of footwear, so the links in the articles that
>>>>>> lead to commons are directing people to nudity or sexual content that they
>>>>>> would not anticipate. There are other problems with some of the images,
>>>>>> including unclear consent for the image to be uploaded by the subject of the
>>>>>> image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see this category as a concrete example of systemic bias coming from
>>>>>> having a male dominated editing community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leather boots is only other category that I found that also has a
>>>>>> large number of images of people. It also contain a disproportionate number
>>>>>> of images of women who are nude or in sexually provocative poses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that it is important to continue to talk about these issues in
>>>>>> the hope that more people with became educated about the problems with with
>>>>>> our current methods to collect, categorize, and disseminate content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sydney Poore
>>>>>> User:FloNight
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation
>>>> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
>>>> and
>>>> Sarah Stierch Consulting
>>>> Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation
>> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
>> and
>> Sarah Stierch Consulting
>> Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
--
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap