The best idea I've seen!

If a subject area is lacking on Commons, the best way to go about it is to upload more photos, so that the one or two "naturist" photos blend in.

Look forward to seeing more images in that category in the future. :)

Cheers,

Russavia

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:

I have friends who live up there. And I will be in the area in July.

I'll see if we can get "decent" photos of the hot springs.

Actually it might be federal land therefore we can get public domain images for it. I need to look into that when I am online.

The best thing to do: replace the crap with quality. Be bold.

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Re...), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom celebration.women@gmail.com wrote:

...

Regarding the question of "what can you do", I had the experience last week of starting a new job. I had to read through the guidelines for the organization, which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment. Prominent on the first page:

"Harassment Defined

1. Hostile Environment Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or

physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the reasonable person, and a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work performance b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. "

Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as "unwelcome sexual attention, sexual advances," etc.

I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's policy is. (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2. But "Hostile environment", item 1 on my workplace's guidelines, is not included.

Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials; this is not identified as a "feminist problem" but as a type of behavior potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high level as unacceptable behavior which creates a "hostile environment"

A very interesting point, which reminded me of "The Benevolent Dictator Incident":

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

Wikimedia has a "friendly space" policy for physical meetings, but apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

To give an example, Commons has a "hot sex barnstar", present on a number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry:

NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms of use:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain...

However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its online environment?

---

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

Another idea -

Perhaps we can create a working list of articles that need better photos and are using absurd sexualized images etc as their photos.

Obviously "sex" articles wouldn't always fall into thy category, but, I'm thinking more stupid things like the hot springs article.

Instead of wiki loves we can call it "wiki hates stupid sexist gross photos in articles that so don't need them"

I'm not starting the list...though. I'm suffering from severe "gender gap" burn out.

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Re...), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom celebration.women@gmail.com wrote:

...

Regarding the question of "what can you do", I had the experience last week of starting a new job. I had to read through the guidelines for the organization, which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment. Prominent on the first page:

"Harassment Defined

1. Hostile Environment Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the reasonable person, and a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work performance b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. "

Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as "unwelcome sexual attention, sexual advances," etc.

I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's policy is. (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2. But "Hostile environment", item 1 on my workplace's guidelines, is not included.

Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials; this is not identified as a "feminist problem" but as a type of behavior potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high level as unacceptable behavior which creates a "hostile environment"

A very interesting point, which reminded me of "The Benevolent Dictator Incident":

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

Wikimedia has a "friendly space" policy for physical meetings, but apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

To give an example, Commons has a "hot sex barnstar", present on a number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry:

NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms of use:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain...

However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its online environment?

---

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

Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation does something," what are you looking for them to do?

You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on what "they" could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I was you.

As you very well know, grantmaking and technical aren't able to do much of anything, due to our new focus. However, community members are welcome to develop Individual Engagement Grants and chapters are able to acquire funding for programs and projects, and the gender gap is something everyone loves to talk about over and over and over again but no one seems to be willing to step up as individuals or as chapters to make large scale changes outside of outreach activities. (And I am grateful for all people do on this list, but..I'm just sayin...it seems to be the same people over and over again bringing this up, however, all people seem to do to about it is complain and talk about it, and take no action, and it's really tiring and depressing to watch and puts the burden on those of us who have limited time and are already burnt out).

-Sarah

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:

...

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Re...), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

I would say that until the Foundation does something to set a different direction, it is indeed pointless to argue about things like this in Wikipedia or Commons.

However, sexism and the gender gap have been prominent topics in the press these last couple of weeks. Talk to journalists instead. You may find them more sympathetic, and such an effort has a better chance of bringing about change.

...

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.comwrote:

...

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom < celebration.women@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Regarding the question of "what can you do", I had the experience last week of starting a new job. I had to read through the guidelines for the organization, which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment. Prominent on the first page:

"Harassment Defined

1. Hostile Environment Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual,

or physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the reasonable person, and a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work performance b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. "

Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as "unwelcome sexual attention, sexual advances," etc.

I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's policy is. (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2. But "Hostile environment", item 1 on my workplace's guidelines, is not included.

Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials; this is not identified as a "feminist problem" but as a type of behavior potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.

I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high level as unacceptable behavior which creates a "hostile environment"

A very interesting point, which reminded me of "The Benevolent Dictator Incident":

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident

Wikimedia has a "friendly space" policy for physical meetings, but apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.

To give an example, Commons has a "hot sex barnstar", present on a number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry:

NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png

Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.

It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms of use:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain...

However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its online environment?

---

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

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:

...

Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation does something," what are you looking for them to do?

Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as I am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR exercises, and no deeds.

Oy vey. Always drama used in your words Andreas! :) I don't think I've ever seen you post a success story or a positive comment on this mailing list ever.

One idea was raised just now: Enshrine the equivalent of the friendly space policy that applies to meet-ups in the terms of use, to apply to the online environment. Treat it like any workplace environment. Make clear that sexism, including inappropriate use of sexual imagery, will not be tolerated.

I actually brought this on in the civility policy discussion a while back (or something like it), and it was shot down vehemently by the community. Someone has submitted a proposal for Wikimania to discuss it. I encourage you to attend if you can:

http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Adopting_friendly_virtua...

Two of the most vocal and active community members in the movement are already signed up to attend as "critics" of it.

Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons, making it clear that the more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome.

The community would have to do that. Wikimedia Foundation doesn't do that. Wikimedia Foundation didn't invent Commons or create the scope for Commons, as far as I know. (I could be wrong though.) So I'm not sure why that would fall into the scope. If Wikimedia stepped in and said "Ok Commonists, here is your new scope," all hell would break lose and we'd most likely have a fork.

The Foundation should have cleaned up the festering sore that is Commons ("ethically broken", as Jimmy Wales called it recently) years ago. It has lacked the will to do so.

Andreas, you consistently have a negative outlook on things. I agree that Commons is a really screwed up strange place. Jimmy and I have both gotten ourselves into trouble in the community fanatically nominating and trying to delete content. However, you're constant negative and jerky attitude towards the Foundation makes them 10 times more unlikely to ever support something *you* want to see change in. Channelling your anger into positive productivity might be a better thing to get people to take notice and want to make a change. But, that's just my opinion. You and I have similar opinions on what needs to happen on Commons, but, we disagree on where it needs to come from - and I think you have the opportunity to help lead to make the change. I really do.

Without support from the top it is no surprise that people like you burn out, or simply stop challenging certain issues, because doing so makes you an outcast in the community that assembles under those conditions.

I chose to take on these "tasks" myself. I applied to be a WIkimedia fellow for a year who lived and breathed the gender gap - no wonder I'm burnt out. And when you're the "go to" person, it happens. I'm grateful, but, even I want to step away and not think about "the gender gap" sometimes.

This happens to most people, especially women (note: when was the last time you saw a man state he was burnt out?), and the Foundation has nothing to do with it, trust me. Sure, I'm severely disappointed at the change in scope and the removal of funding to support women's outreach outside of community grants. For months I had to sit at my desk and stare at a big sign saying WMF wanted to increase the number of women editors, knowing my fellowship was ending and no one at the Foundation would be funded to continue that work on a large scale. It's been tough, but, so many women have stepped up to make a change...

And now we need more people to stop bitching and make the change. And all I see here is a lot of bitching.

Here is what you said a few days ago:

---o0o---

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.

---o0o---

Again, without support from the top, there is nothing you can do, or could have done as a fellow, to address this. But know this: the people who will leave in protest if the Foundation ever does step up to the plate are the ones who made your life hell there.

No one made my life hell, that's dramatic. The people who really frustrated me have different views of sexual content and imagery than me, disagree with me on what the scope is, and so forth. I have never once said to myself "Damn you Wikimedia Foundation..you're the reason I hate working on Commons!!!!"

Just like the dude who told me I'm a "secret sexist" (whatever that means) on mytalk page on Wikipedia two days ago. I never shook my fist and said "I blame you, Wikimedia Foundation...you are the reason these trolls show up on Wikipedia...damn you!"

The Wikimedia Foundation should adjust its policies to be less welcoming to editors with such strange views of women, so they no longer "outnumber", to use Kaldari's expression, normal people.

How do you do that? Interviewing people before they click the edit button? LOL. Assholes are going to be everywhere, and they'll work the system no matter what. That's why we need more good people editing, and why taking action to make that happen can make a difference.

-Sarah

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation.

Sarah,

I know this is a tangent to what you're talking about, but I think it's an important point. Last year's rewrite of the terms of use was guided by Foundation staff, but in my view and that of many others was a model project for how to follow the knowledge and wisdom that exists within our community. There was draft text from WMF counsel, but in a two month+ period it was radically altered and expanded by a process led by numerous volunteers and community members. WMF staff provided legal expertise, but went out of itse way to express that the knowledge of how to align the TOU with the movement's goals resided primarily within the community, and created a space in which that could be explored and articulated.

While it does not do much to address concerns about gender, I believe that the TOU rewrite was a big success, both in terms of modeling how the volunteer community can lead and WMF can facilitate and play a support role; and also in terms of the quality of the final document.

Of course, these documents can be rewritten, and I'm sure this one will be rewritten in a few years. Before that, though, will be a rewrite of the Privacy Policy, which actually may be a more suitable document for some of these concerns. I encourage everyone on this list to participate when the time comes for that, which I think will be a matter of weeks or months.

Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Quick email - traveling -

Pete makes a good point and in the end that's what I'm failing (but trying) to suggest: we have the same conversation every 6 months.

We need to do something more substantial. When drama hits on wikimedia-l the Foundation (I'm a volunteer on this list, as my department doesn't do anything with TOS, etc) comments, the community drafts things on meta, and sometimes change happens - here, we just get irritated and talk in circles and the Foundation seems to not even notice our concerns. And when I do rage about it at the office, it falls on the ears of people who have nothing to do with policy/TOS change and/or I just look like the "bitchy gender gapper" and everyone states at me with blank eyes.

What can WE do to get the Foundation to take MORE notice? Or the Board? We need to do something. Something bigger than 6 same people talking on this list. The last "impact" we made regarding some form of policy was the personality rights template almost 1-2 years ago.

And I agree with Sarah - if this was about racism or "extreme situations" I think the Foundation would be stepping up. The only people in the press writing about Wikipedia's "porn problem" is Greg Kohs. And that isn't even "real" press, it's the freaking Examiner.

Perhaps someone should write an oped about it. I have media connections - and if it could be a woman, preferably, all the better. I cannot do it.

I bet if people knew more about the "real" hardcore (no pun intended) situations going on regarding sexism on Wikipedia (ie categories are silly compared to what is happening here) perhaps people would finally click and want to change things

We have grassroots efforts to get more women and academics to write Wikipedia now around the world.

We need a grassroots effort for more than just that, and the same people can't keep doing it all without risking their sanity and burn out.

What the hell is it going to take to get people here raged enough that they want to do MORE then talk on this list?

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation.

Sarah,

I know this is a tangent to what you're talking about, but I think it's an important point. Last year's rewrite of the terms of use was guided by Foundation staff, but in my view and that of many others was a model project for how to follow the knowledge and wisdom that exists within our community. There was draft text from WMF counsel, but in a two month+ period it was radically altered and expanded by a process led by numerous volunteers and community members. WMF staff provided legal expertise, but went out of itse way to express that the knowledge of how to align the TOU with the movement's goals resided primarily within the community, and created a space in which that could be explored and articulated.

While it does not do much to address concerns about gender, I believe that the TOU rewrite was a big success, both in terms of modeling how the volunteer community can lead and WMF can facilitate and play a support role; and also in terms of the quality of the final document.

Of course, these documents can be rewritten, and I'm sure this one will be rewritten in a few years. Before that, though, will be a rewrite of the Privacy Policy, which actually may be a more suitable document for some of these concerns. I encourage everyone on this list to participate when the time comes for that, which I think will be a matter of weeks or months.

Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Thanks, Pete, that's helpful. Would you mind pinging us when the privacy policy discussions begin? I'm sure there will be lots of notifications, but it's really easy to miss the significance of these things.

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

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:

Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation does something," what are you looking for them to do?

You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on what "they" could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I was you.

As you very well know, grantmaking and technical aren't able to do much of anything, due to our new focus. However, community members are welcome to develop Individual Engagement Grants and chapters are able to acquire funding for programs and projects, and the gender gap is something everyone loves to talk about over and over and over again but no one seems to be willing to step up as individuals or as chapters to make large scale changes outside of outreach activities. (And I am grateful for all people do on this list, but..I'm just sayin...it seems to be the same people over and over again bringing this up, however, all people seem to do to about it is complain and talk about it, and take no action, and it's really tiring and depressing to watch and puts the burden on those of us who have limited time and are already burnt out).

-Sarah

Andreas is one of the few editors who does a lot to try to counter these

things, but a group of volunteers can't turn this around on our own. And until the atmosphere changes, we're unlikely to attract good new editors, especially women, so we're in a chicken-and-egg situation. The argument is that the Foundation is the only structure in a position to change things in the kind of radical way that's needed.

For example, the Foundation did a lot of good by backing the need for good BLP policies, even though their statement didn't say anything new. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_peopleB... it offered moral support to the editors who were trying to change attitudes toward BLP, and that did make a difference on the ground. We still have BLP problems, but they're better than they used to be, and easier to change when we find them.

A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism, sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.

Sarah

Yay! Erik replied. Seriously, I was beginning to think no one from the Foundation read this mailing list anymore aside from me and Kaldari (and we read it as volunteers!). See comments below.

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism, sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.

Most egregious examples of these behaviors are already in violation of

site terms of use and community policies, but I agree that a strong reinforcement of core values could help. Agendas unrelated to the

First, I agree with Sarah. While we can go "oh the Foundation has this policy, and this policy as approved by the board," having a formal, non-legal speak statement that is shared with the press, the world, etc, stating we're not tolerating any type of crap - racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. - could make quite an impact.

It might even cut down on vandalism (recent "faggot" blow up regarding that basketball player where his teams page was vandalized and then the community failed to strike the changes and edit summary until the press caught wave of it and then they struck it, fail) and step up administrative duties to make sure "crap" is removed off the permanent record quicker.

And it's not that hard - to draft up a no-tolerance statement. I sign one when I started my job at WMF, but no one reads terms of services, right? (except a 2% of community members and the people who write it :) ) This serves as a reminder.

The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat analogous.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain...

Here's a question: so, if someone harasses me on Wikipedia (and it happened recently, and it'll happen again) I can point to this TOS and that can do what with that user? It took days for admins to go back and forth with the editor who harassed me (and another editor) before they finally blocked the guy forever (he had harassed other people before and he had been blocked temporarily). So what can *I* do with this TOS when something happens to me next?

What are my actions to take to make sure that things move quickly and the situation gets resolved as fast as possible, because as we know, it doesn't often get resolved quickly? And as an admin prone to harassment, I can't do much about it because of "conflict of interest." So what can/should I do?

That's one thing I see missing from that section. A "here's what you do if you're harassed" but, thankfully there is a section for what to do if you fear copyright violations. (DMCA compliance) (and yes, I'm being sarcastic)

In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs of identifiable people:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_peopl...

Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about "private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_peopl...

Yes, and this was the last thing "this" mailing list had some influence on regarding policy. And it's still awaiting to be seriously implemented in my humble opinion. And with so much crap on Commons, and that whole drama with the crap that gets downloaded from Flickr (i.e. "Russian porn" that gets mysteriously deleted from Commons after being uploaded but is still maintained on Commons and they refuse to download) and so forth with little to no knowledge of what "contract" a person signed - Commons has found ways to get around this I'm sure, in many ways.

There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged individually to help further develop and refine this policy to elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread. And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that conversation.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What more can we do than just sit here on this list and complain about it?

Similarly, on things like acceptable content in user space, en.wp has a pretty sophisticated and carefully considered policy which already prohibits needlessly provocative content, and which could be developed further to explain how such content can be seen as harassing and damage an environment where people can work together productively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages

Yes, but that's a user page. Remember the pregnancy article drama? Talk about an unsafe place - especially the talk page. Sexy pregnancy naked model or clothed "normal" woman who is pregnant? Hmm tough call. We better make a bunch of sexist and sexualized jokes to help figure it all out and then post photos...hmmm....

It's also worth noting on the subject of Commons that WMF did _not_ withdraw the Controversial Content resolution from May 2011, only the personal image hiding feature component thereof. The resolution also contained other recommendations consistent with reinforcing the educational scope of Wikimedia Commons:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content

Yes, and times and times again people like me, Kaldari, and others have said "YOU CAN HELP CURATE PLEASE COME TO COMMONS AND HELP" and *it's so rare * (uh....almost never?) that anyone does come and help that it's still a hopeless cause. Everyone wants to edit Wikipedia but no one wants to help clean up Commons. If Wikipedia needs more voices...imagine what's happening in Commons. Bad things.

And the community lives and breaths that "NOT CENSORED" clause. If I had a dollar for how many times I had it thrown in my face on Commons deletion discussions, followed by an appalling break down as to why a photo of another penis is important because of the shape and size and where it can be used on projects and that "We can't prove if that it's someone under 18 even though the description says it, we don't know for sure," I'd be rich enough I could invest all my money in something less demoralizing and retire in Paris and help the French fight their freedom of panorama fight.

That "not censored" thing needs to die a big dramatic death. It's so stupid.

On the last point, it's not dropped off our radar. Better media patrolling and review tools are on the agenda for the new multimedia engineering team which we're currently hiring for. Lowering the barrier to flag media that have no realistic educational value (for whatever reason) may help create a greater culture of shared responsibility for curating Commons and keeping it useful, rather than allowing personal interests to dominate small group discussions. Thoughts on how software design could positively affect user behavior and lead to increased diversity in decision-making are greatly appreciated.

I had no clue about this, and most people here probably didn't. Thanks for letting us know. I really hope that when this team starts, they don't forget about the gender gap list, like many people often do :)

Is there a page on Meta already where we're coordinating overall policy reform issues relating to the gender gap (whether WMF or community policies) that should be considered?

Erik

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution

There is now. Folks need to remember - Wikipedia is where Wikipedia policy is developed, meta is where larger scale policy is developed. So it's the best place to be for this type of work right now.

Sarah

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:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stoll...

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]]

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.comwrote:

...

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:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stoll...

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

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:

It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could proactively deal with these kinds of things.

(They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures, but that's another matter...)

I really don't think so Tom. I'm fairly active in these discussions, and feel my views are generally given appropriate weight. (I've done very little on OTRS for some time, but so I might not exactly fit the description, but I consider our OTRS team kindred spirits!)

Sometimes a case is closed counter to my vote; in some of those cases, I learn something I didn't know. The Stollzow case is a very rare exception where I feel the wrong decision was made; I don't think it's fair to generalize from fringe cases like this. It can be a pretty congenial place to work, and dissenting views are in my experience given fair consideration. (Care and clarity in expressing one's views is always a consideration, because of the huge linguistic and philosophical diversity among Commons contributors.)

-Pete

You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe below is covered by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality.

If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop talking on this list (and elsewhere) and make proposals on Commons instead for full community input.

I hate to tell you this, but blowing hot air on this list or on other websites will not bring about change. As I've stated, it's all about the venue.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep. (While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link to it.)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phal...

The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons." Further photographs showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.

The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:

---o0o---

File:Labret phallic coddling.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg

To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in source." This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these. Conti http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti|✉http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on

Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem. Given that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*. -- Infrogmation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation ( talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation) 02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. -- Infrogmationhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation (talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation) 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to identifiable people in sexually explicit images? --Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti |✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age), please see {{2257 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:2257}}. For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a number of years (flickr sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/overdrive_cz/sets/72157603896218916/), some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but justifiably in my opinion --moogsihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moogsi (blah http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi) 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav Faiglhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faigl.ladislav (talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faigl.ladislav) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many photos. -*mattbuck http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbuck* ( Talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---o0o---

The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is particularly relevant in this regard:

---o0o---

Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), it's still desirable to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used on Wikipedia.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html

---o0o---

In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr account holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded to Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a Commons user who specialised in uploading sexual media from Flickr. I believe a similar role has more recently been played by a different account, Handcuffed, after Max Rebo Band ceased editing in early 2011.

No indication is given that the Flickr account holder or the woman depicted are aware of and have consented to the Commons upload. Instead, it appears it is assumed in Commons that if a man uploads sexual images of his current or former wife (or a woman who is neither, but whom he describes as such) to Flickr's adult section, this means that the woman in question is aware of and has consented to the Flickr upload, and is happy for her likeness to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to be used in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and to be used commercially in perpetuity by anyone who sees the image on a Wikimedia site.

Surely, we can all imagine a number of scenarios where one or more of these assumptions might prove mistaken. (I have personal experience of a case where the director of a small publishing house specialising in underground comics put out an entire book with nude images of his former partners, including one with whom he had a child, without asking any of them for consent.)

There are hundreds of similar Flickr uploads on Commons, and more are added continuously.

It would be helpful if the Foundation could insist on a standard letter to be sent to Flickr users that would advise them in advance of the intent to upload an adult Flickr image of theirs to a Wikimedia site. This would point out to the Flickr account holder that the image may become highly visible through inclusion in Wikipedia, and that once uploaded, it will be available in perpetuity for commercial re-use by anyone who sees the image on a Wikimedia site.

It would then ask for formal confirmation that the model(s) have been advised of these facts, and that they are happy for their image to be used in this manner. This would also go a long way towards ensuring that any commercial re-users of the images are safe, and won't find themselves at the receiving end of a legal claim.

I believe it would be in the Foundation's best interests to advise Commons admins that they are expected to uphold these requirements, and to de-admin anyone who fails to do so.

On a slightly different, but related topic, Commons admins should be advised that in the case of sexual images whose description states that they depict a minor (i.e. below the age of 18), the appropriate action is not to open a deletion discussion (there was a recent instance where this happened), but to have the image promptly removed by an oversighter and/or Foundation staff. Again, I believe it would be in the Foundation's and downstream users' best interests to issue a warning to any admins failing to do so, and to de-admin them if the warning is not heeded.

Andreas

---

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

Hey Fluff,

Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.

I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that you don't have many contributions there ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and I am again urging you to come and join us.

Are you up for that challenge?

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there.

-Fluff

Fluff,

I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely what I mean by this.

That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my "tits".

Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave that environment.

-Fluff

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hey Fluff,

Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.

I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that you don't have many contributions there (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and I am again urging you to come and join us.

Are you up for that challenge?

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there.

-Fluff

---

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

More seriously; the idea that someone either volunteers themselves to enter an environment they find disturbing and uncomfortable, or they're actively contributing to it being disturbing and uncomfortable, is (frankly) bullshit. Katherine is not responsible for the failure of Commons to produce much beyond pictures of genitals. If they continue to do so, while she continues to refuse to get involved, it will still not be her responsibility.

Where I come from, we tend to take the attitude that people are inherently capable of change - that if people are contributing to an awkward, and uncomfortable, and narrowly-scoped environment, they can in fact, very occasionally, come to understand this and solve for it.

Now: it's true that groups can be aided in this by people from outside who understand the problem entering to help. But it does not follow that anyone from outside the environment who notes that there is a problem be /mandated to participate/ and shamed if they refuse.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:

That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes, they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been *part of the solution!* We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the lions' teeth will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

...

Fluff,

I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely what I mean by this.

That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't

have the

...

energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things

on

...

Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment

where my

...

right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my "tits".

Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them

very

...

uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am

comfortable

...

speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to

brave

...

that environment.

-Fluff

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com

wrote:

...

Hey Fluff,

Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may

not

...

...

agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar

views

...

...

(but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can

agree

...

...

on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice

heard in

...

...

the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.

I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting

that

...

...

you don't have many contributions there (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter),

and

...

...

I am again urging you to come and join us.

Are you up for that challenge?

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air"

on

...

...

...

Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the

options you

...

...

...

mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long

IRC

...

...

...

conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the

genuine

...

...

...

impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there.

-Fluff

---

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

Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.

I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread

something is going terribly wrong.

And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.

I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000.

But I do know that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis basically pales in comparison to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_To...

And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?

Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than ill-informed opinion.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:

...

Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.

I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread something is going terribly wrong.

---

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

Pete,

The other day, Daniel Case referred on Commons to Commons' "failure as a community to formulate a clear policy about posting identifiable nudes in private places without any indication as to whether they have consented to publication of those images under a licensing scheme that allows for nearly unlimited reproduction, distribution and modification of them".

In reply you said, on Commons, "Daniel, I have no doubt that it happens on our site all the time, and it's horrible, and it's something we should stop if we possibly can."

Yet now, faced with those "horrible" things that happen "on our site all the time", and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things Commons does.

Shame on you.

Oliver said a very stupid thing. Your seizing on it to deflect from the fact that the spirit and letter of the board resolution are routinely ignored in Commons looks like a devious gambit that presents us with a wonderful opportunity to distinguish those who pay mere lip service to the idea of putting those "horrible" things right from those who actually want to.

As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law, a journalist friend of mine shared the following anecdote in discussion on Wikipediocracy a couple of days ago:

---o0o---

My latest magazine piece (here if anyone is interestedhttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0508/Provoking-peace-in-Indonesia) is about Ambon, Indonesia, a place few professional photographers go to anymore. The photo desk couldn't find anything decent to illustrate the story, and I suggested maybe trolling through Wikipedia commons for old Dutch public domain stuff. Photo editor cut me right off, told me they'd introduced a strict policy a few years ago of never user anything from commons because they invariably draw take-down notices and threats. Even in the case of pictures of public domain works (an old map for instance), no doing. He said the pictures themselves are frequently stolen from museums or government archives. The lawyers told us that commons has such a bad reputation for accurate licensing that a downstream user such as ourselves could ultimately be considered culpable if anyone chose to go that route.

---o0o---

There was a coda to that when I found that his publication actually have some Commons images on their website (though never in print editions, apparently). I gave an example from last week:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2013/0506/Are-South-Afr...

It turns out it was a copyright violation: it is used on postzambia.com in two articles dated three months prior to the Commons upload, which was done by a drive-by account that never edited before or since.

http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=25747 http://www.postzambia.com/post-print_article.php?articleId=26113 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GuyScott.jpeg&oldid=... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Scott&diff=497500562&o...

And before someone clever comes along and suggests The Post probably took it from Commons and put it on the articles' web pages three months after publication, let us note that there are dozens of photographs of Mr Scott on postzambia.com, as you would expect for a Zambian newspaper, whereas Commons has exactly one: that one.

So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may have lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site is riddled with copyright violations.

Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful.

Andreas

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.comwrote:

I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue.

The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an extraordinary collection of bird photos, among many others. It's worth a look.[1]

The collection of freely licensed photos and other files at Commons is enormous, diverse, and useful. It is fairly well organized. Tons of useless junk gets weeded out. Hundreds of Wikimedia projects are supported in their various missions.

All this happens in spite of there being a firehose of junk and copyright violations pointed at Commons every single day.[2] In spite of the fact that native speakers of many, many languages have to find ways to work together. In spite of the fact that people bring astonishingly varied projects and dreams and hopes and expectations to their work on Commons.

What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to pitch in whatever way they see fit. Sorting through deletion nominations, filling requests to rename files, considering policy changes, and -- my personal favorite -- gradually amassing probably the best compendium of knowledge about certain aspects of international intellectual property law ever assembled in human history.

When I hear people refer to this community as "broken," I am amazed how out of touch they are with the reality and exquisite beauty of what Commons is. I can only assume they are overly influenced by a small number of edge cases that have come to their attention god knows how, and have generalized on those experiences to draw a fallacious conclusion.

With all that said, of course, there's a tremendous amount of stuff that could and should be done to make Commons work better, to make it a more inviting and respectful environment, to make it more effective at advancing the Wikimedia mission.

But one thing I am damn sure is not part of that solution is offhand insults directed at the community of dedicated volunteers who sustain and nurture Commons. Even if there are unhealthy social dynamics in the way the site functions (and there certainly are), I can't begin to imagine what theory of progress would rely on calling them out as a reflection of the overall health of the project.

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JJ_Harrison [2] For instance, one recent day saw 48 nominations for deletion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2013/05/04

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

...

And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.

I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000.

But I do know that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis basically pales in comparison to

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_To...

And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?

Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than ill-informed opinion.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother responding -- much like the weekly "Commons is broken" threads we see elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.

I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken"

thread

...

something is going terribly wrong.

---

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

I'll gladly pass your comment on, Russavia. How should the attribution read? At present it reads,

Which way?

Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons GNU Free Documentation License http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1106/From-a-distance-Syria-...

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

Andreas

Please inform your "kind" colleague, that if they intend to bag Commons in future, they should ensure that their own house is in order first; for I now have the sad duty to inform you that they have used images from Commons with scant regard for licencing, and I have made a note of this on the image concerned.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Road_sign_Homs-Palmyra-Baghdad.j...

The lesson? Before accusing others of violating copyright (i.e. Commons) one should stop and think twice before they open mouth and insert foot.

Regards,

Russavia

---

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

And thank you Andreas for bringing this to our attention on a most public list. You could have thrown a {{speedy}} template on it, and it could have been dealt with on project. But I have gone ahead and deleted it.

You have a most fabulous day Andreas, and your friend too :)

Cheers,

Russavia

Hi Pete, et al

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

You know what other sites are "riddled with copyright violations"? YouTube, Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not perfect, but they are an asset.

I know of a site riddled with copyright violations. The Christian Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-rec... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lawndarts.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0226/Were-those-the-bones-of-Cleopatra... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ac_artemisephesus.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1212/Top-5-most-important-product-rec... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extra_Strength_Tylenol_and_Tylenol_PM...)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006-02-04_Metal_spiral.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0621/Queen-of-Sheba-left-genetic-legac... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saabaghiberti.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/diggin-it/2011/0630/Enjoy-the... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amelanchier_alnifolia.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0702/A-newer-cheaper-K... (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Three_Generations_of_Kindles.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1213/Hot-toys-through-the-ages-VIDEO/... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gameboy_Pocket.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1221/Magnitude-7.4-ear... (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_location_map.svg)

Sigh! Now I have to notify more contributors about their work basically being used in violation of their licencing by the very organisation, who supposedly, according to Dan Murphy, says Commons has "a bad reputation for accurate licensing".

It is most unfortunate that Dan Murphy has linked his employer to his idiotic bashing and trolling of Commons/Wikimedia projects. And it is little wonder that he didn't think that they would be interested in doing a guest blog for the troll Gregory Kohs....you know the old saying....those in glass houses and all that.

I wonder whether Andreas will publicly post this to the same thread on Wikipediocracy where he and others are trolling this very list. I won't hold my breathe!

Cheers,

Russavia

Hello again Andreas

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names, according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly faster than the Wikimedia response.

You are wrong yet again. I am speaking from experience here, and "inappropriate" images have been removed within minutes of them being brought to our attention. Odder, a Commons oversighter also verifies this at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_... where he states:

"as all reports of potentially illegal content are responded to within a few hours (sometimes even minutes), which is much better than the 12 hours than Flickr takes pride in."

12 hours being the length of time it was quoted by one of your cohorts.

Also, Andreas, for someone who is so interested in Commons and having images removed and having a streamlined reporting process, it is most curious as to why you haven't commented in that thread above, and added your support to it.

Or is it easier to ignore the fact that we on Commons are being pro-active in issues such as this and keep peddling "OMG COMMONS IS BROKEN" in venues such as this.

Any other reports you have to make are also best done on Commons, so that our admins can deal with them within our processes. I believe this has been told to you on numerous occasions now, amirite?

Your contribs (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayen466) and deleted contribs (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Jayen466) clearly demonstrate that it is more important for you to troll off the project, than it is do anything remotely useful on the project.

Regards,

Russavia

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer, then they will help to bring Commons practice in line with the intent of the board resolution. That is all for the good, is it not?

No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a blunt instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken in a private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr, Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.

The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent. It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would have to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habit...

In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address that point.

YouTube and Flickr would strongly disagree with that assertion. (They have staff.)

Unless I'm badly mistaken, their staff is not especially proactive, but instead respond to user flags and DMCA filings. Commons volunteers are proactive. Perhaps not up to your standard of perfection, but to a very high degree.

-Pete

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private

...

place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent. It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would have to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habit...

In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address that point.

Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their reasonable expectation of privacy.

The board resolution requires that a photo taken in a private place carry affirmation of consent. Please note the word OR -- not the word AND. It doesn't matter if the people in the photo waived an expectation of privacy, if they are in a private place. Affirmation of consent (to something poorly defined) is still required.

Pete

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting

...

OR <<

with an expectation of privacy.

The "OR" inserted above is important to the paraphrase -- it's one of the things that often gets missed in this discussion.

-Pete

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

... These are all the types of distinctions that we on Commons make every day; day in day out.

Hi Russavia,

Given your expertise on Commons, how would you approach this issue if you were leading from the front?

That is, what processes would you put in place to make (reasonably) sure that photographs of naked men and women -- or photographs that are in some other way sexually compromising -- are not hosted on Commons without the subjects' consent?

Sarah

On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look like.

Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent

So images like this one would have to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habit...

That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which states the following: " This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be reasonably inferred." Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several such options available with the consent template.

Ryan Kaldari

On 5/13/13 5:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

...

So images like this one would have to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg

That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which
states the following:
" This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres
to professional editorial standards, allowing the status of
consent to be reasonably inferred."
Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several
such options available with the consent template.

This certainly seems like an improvement to me (in terms of due diligence and providing the reader with useful information) -- but how does it address the image's compatibility with the board resolution? It remains true that all 5 people were in a private setting, and did not (to our knowledge) express their consent to be published on Wikimedia Commons. (Or perhaps mere "consent to be published" is what the board meant - ?)

That's a good point. I wonder if it would be useful to circle back around with the Board and see if they would be interested in a more realistic "baby-steps" approach to the issue of consent.

Ryan Kaldari

Hi SJ,

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Pete,

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands.

No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a

blunt

...

instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken

in a

...

private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr, Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.

H'm? The resolution does not specify deletion. Nor does it specify what the Commons guideline should look like - it specifically does not link to a historical revision.

It urges that the current Commons guideline extend to specifying when an explicit affirmation of consent is required by the uploader. And that this then be enforced. As with the "no fair use" shift, I would expect first this would only apply to new media, then uncertain-status media would be phased out, then years later the uncertain-status orphans might be mothballed.

I'm pretty sure that's something we all agree would be worthwhile, and if that was your intent in the resolution, excellent. If there is will to move forward, it's hardly worth quibbling over the language of something passed several years ago.

The current Commons guideline and template do define "consent": to be

published on the Internet. "The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons." The Commons policy already addresses the nuances around public figures, news of public interest, &c.

Yes, exactly. It does, but it could do so better. I think it's interesting that the very file used to illustrate the central Commons policy, [[COM:IDENT]], contains only a statement that the subject consented to having her image published; not published on the Internet or published on Commons, but merely published. I don't see any indication that anybody has given a thought to what is required by the policy. Clearly, we have some work to do in establishing a clear shared understanding. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Actress_Anna_Unterberger-2.jpg

Most identifiable photos of non-public-figures published on Flickr,

Facebook, Google +, &c do *not* in fact have subject consent. We can and should do better than this: as with awkward copyright status, images with uncertain consent should be replcaed with those with clear consent wherever possible.

Yes, this is exactly my point. Wikimedia Commons is not any more "broken" by this measure than any other top upload site; I'd say it's much *less* broken by this measure.

...

there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look

like.

<tada> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent </tada>

As I acknowledged before, this template is more thoroughly developed than I had remembered, and something I think we should use. I misspoke. Still, it's worth pointing out that this template is in use on about 600 files on Commons -- a tiny sliver of a tiny fraction of where it could be applied. It probably should be applied to every file in [[Template:Personality rights]], or if it can't be applied, those files should be considered for deletion. I think one of the best things we could all do to move things forward would be to start adding the consent template wherever we can, and encouraging our photographer friends to do so as well. It would be fantastic -- really fantastic -- if cultural organizations advised by a Wikipedian in Residence, and organizations within the Wikimedia sphere, could start doing so by default, to set a strong example. I'm going to start with the photos of me.

Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

For anybody interested: I've nominated the photo I mentioned a while back, a portrait of Karen Stollznow, for deletion. To me this seems like a clear case of a file that Commons policy requires be deleted, but that was not. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stol...

Pete

Hey Sarah et al

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to act rather than expecting others to do it, but it's not a particularly pleasant experience. I understand why people don't want to get involved.

You did good. But I will give you the same advice that I give others.

Always look at the copyright status first. If the copyright status is an issue, away it goes by way of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:L and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PRP -- You may wish to enable in Preferences (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets) under maintenance tools "GoogleImages tab" and "Tineye tab" - this will add tabs to the top of every image to make it easy to search for other results

If copyright checks out, for private settings/expectation of privacy images, then look at whether consent was given for their initial publication (as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT). Ignore things such as whether they have given permission for photos to be uploaded to Commons, for photos to be made available under free licences, etc for these are not actually required -- initial publication is what matters currently.

Try to avoid, especially for high quality (legal) sexuality images, arguing against scope. Human sexuality is an all-encompassing topic, and what is depicted is definitely part of (legal) human sexuality. You may not like it, but part of Commons mission does include hosting resources relating to (legal) human sexuality. This is going to be a somewhat emotional hurdle that many will basically need to accpet, and realise that such photos are not something that are going to disappear, but it is definitely something that we can manage inline with our other policies (some of which I've described above). By making the "scope" less of any argument in nominations for such high-quality photos, it will keep your nomination to the point, and others will often fall inline. By making scope an issue, you risk what Mattbuck has done, in demonstrating scope (make note, it is only a comment from him, not opining on whether they should be kept or deleted), and also risk making the issue an "emotional" one. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Donkey_p... is perhaps a good example of how generally not to conduct a DR; it was overly emotive, and missed the point that the underlying image was basically a copyvio. So avoid scope arguments if you can for high quality photos, or "unique" images - keep such arguments for the low quality "here's a photo of my dick y'all"-type shots. But in your current nom, scope won't be an issue.

Hope this gives you a little bit of basic understanding of how, I at least, approach DR's on Commons.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

...

Hey Sarah et al

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to act rather

than

...

expecting others to do it, but it's not a particularly pleasant

experience.

...

I understand why people don't want to get involved.

You did good. But I will give you the same advice that I give others. ...

If copyright checks out, for private settings/expectation of privacy images, then look at whether consent was given for their initial publication (as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT). Ignore things such as whether they have given permission for photos to be uploaded to Commons, for photos to be made available under free licences, etc for these are not actually required -- initial publication is what matters currently.

Thanks, Russavia, this is very helpful advice. Regarding consent, Commons:IDENT says: "Consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to do what they like with the image. ... The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons."

So a model release would presumably have to include agreeing to release the image under a free licence, or explicitly to upload it to Commons. It could not simply be agreement to publication, which might be of a more limited kind.

Is that your interpretation too?

...

This seems to be the crux of the matter. Erik said,

---o0o---

Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), *it's still desirable to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons*, because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used on Wikipedia.

---o0o---

Russavia said,

---o0o---

If copyright checks out, for private settings/expectation of privacy images, then look at *whether consent was given for their initial** **publication* (as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT). *Ignore things such as whether they have given permission for photos to be uploaded to Commons, for photos to be made available under free licences, etc for these are not actually required -- initial publication is what matters currently.*

---o0o---

There is a disconnect here between Russavia's interpretation, which I believe is representative of the Commons view, and Erik's interpretation, which I believe reflects the intent of the board resolution.

That disconnect needs to be resolved.

Ryan offered a quote from the consent template:

---o0o---

"This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to *professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be reasonably inferred*."

---o0o---

This introduces the editorial standards of the source as a criterion. We had the example of the official White House photostream vs. a pseudonymous Flickr account that posted adult images on Flickr and then disappeared.

It seems to me that this is the way to resolve the contradiction. The Commons view that initial publication alone justifies a Commons upload is appropriate for sources that have high professional and ethical standards.

The board view, i.e. that specific consent for the Commons upload should be sought, must be brought to bear on sources with poor editorial standards, such as pseudonymous uploads of sexual media by Flickr accounts that often disappear a relatively short time after the upload.

Thanks for the deletion nomination, Sarah.

Andreas

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

<snip> Erik said,

---o0o---

Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), *it's still desirable to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons*, because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used on Wikipedia.

---o0o---

<snip> Erik's interpretation, which I believe reflects the intent of the board resolution.

We need to be careful here. Does Erik's statement of what is *desirable* (the word he used) truly read to you as an *interpretation* of the resolution? I think not. In fact, Erik has used similar language ("consent to be photographed") on this very list. Speaking of what is desirable is a very different thing than interpreting a resolution.

Meanwhile, we still have the issue that the resolution does not address what is being consented to. It's plain English, and it's simply not stated. Trying to interpret something that is simply not there doesn't seem like a good use of our time.

But pushing to develop and pass a more helpfully-worded resolution does. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Hi Pete, COM:IDENT makes clear that consent to be photographed isn't

enough:

"Consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to do what they like with the image. ... The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons."

That's the current guideline. If this were enforced, it would cut down on a large percentage of the cases we're seeing, where there's no evidence of consent to a release of the kind needed for Commons.

Sarah

And I see that you are just as active (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ironholds) so you are obviously talking as a result of long-term experience.

It goes back to my response to Erik, that it is easier to sit back and be negative, than it is to get involved. In terms of this list specifically, you are basically preaching to the choir, and that's not going to change a thing.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:

That sounds perfectly reasonable. In the same way: those Christians who didn't stick their head in the lion's mouth should be ashamed. I mean, yes, they'd have ended up decapitated, but they'd have been part of the solution! We just need a few more people to get nibbled on before the lions' teeth will be far too worn down to bite anyone else.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:

...

Fluff,

I can only say that with that in mind, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack in anyway shape or form on yourself personally, and I hope you realise precisely what I mean by this.

That personal invite by myself will always stay open to you, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes around "my neck of the woods".

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my "tits".

Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave that environment.

-Fluff

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hey Fluff,

Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.

I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that you don't have many contributions there

(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter), and I am again urging you to come and join us.

Are you up for that challenge?

Cheers,

Russavia

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how discussions tend to go there.

-Fluff

---

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

I feel *exactly* the same way, and I'm a Commons admin :( This speaks for me, too.

-- Allie

On May 12, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my "tits".

Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I am comfortable speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my speaking here it will provide support to the people who are willing to brave that environment.

-Fluff

Tom, I agree with your concern. But if the principle is that we should enforce the board resolution anywhere it applies, we should simply delete this photo without needing OTRS, right? It's an issue of who's obligated to do what. The board resolution clearly states that if there is no demonstration of consent, the file must be deleted. So the subject shouldn't even need to assert her dissent for the deletion to go through, if we're to be true to the resolution.

This gets problematic pretty quickly, though, when you think about the huge number of innocuous and useful images of people in private places on Wikipedia and other projects. For instance, when the Wikimedia Foundation published a photo of me on its site, of course they consulted me before publishing it, and I gave my consent; but that is not reflected in the Commons file, there's no way for the viewer to know whether I consented or not. So going by the letter of the resolution, this (and most other Wikimedia Foundation staff photos) would have to be deleted: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Pete_Forsyth.jpg

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

p.s. I just noticed there is more of a history to the Karen Stollznow file than I remembered. Looks like it was uploaded more than once:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stoll...

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth 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:

...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stoll...

...

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?

The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on, register a username on Commons and say "Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete."

Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm that the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.

Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the side of caution - in this case, probably deleting.

-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/

---

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

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism, sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.

<snip>

In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs of identifiable people:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_peopl...

Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about

"private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_peopl...

There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged individually to help further develop and refine this policy to elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread. And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that conversation.

I think some discussion of the outcomes of this resolution might be productive. As a frequent participant in deletion decisions on Wikimedia Commons, my very strong sense is that we do well at complying with the letter of that particular resolution resolution. In my experience, when somebody nominates an unclothed photo of a clearly identifiable subject for deletion, and there is no evidence of the person's consent, the file is generally deleted without any particular resistance.

Unfortunately, this leaves two major gaps: (1) cases where reasonable people could and do disagree about whether or not somebody is identifiable, and (2) cases where those concerned about the subject find a particular photo problematic irrespective of whether or not he or she is identifiable.

I believe the Board acted with very good intentions with that resolution, but there is an unintended consequence that identifiability has become the focus of many of these discussions. I think board action to address this problem would be welcome and effective; but I would hope that new language be carefully considered and vetted before passage to try to anticipate and avoid further undesirable consequences.

It's also worth noting on the subject of Commons that WMF did _not_ withdraw the Controversial Content resolution from May 2011, only the personal image hiding feature component thereof. The resolution also contained other recommendations consistent with reinforcing the educational scope of Wikimedia Commons:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content

"We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement."

"We urge the Wikimedia Foundation and community to work together in developing and implementing further new tools for using and curating Commons, to make the tasks of reviewing, deleting, categorizing, uploading and using images easier.

In my view, this resolution missed the biggest area of opportunity, which can be done by anyone: to develop essays, guidelines, or policies on Commons that describe common scenarios, and outline effective outcomes. Those of us processing deletion nominations on Commons are drinking from a firehose; by my estimation, every day has dozens of nominations, some days well over 100. There are probably 5-10 regular participants and administrators processing these, with others dropping in more occasionally. The key lesson in that is that carefully phrased nominations that make reference to policies and guidelines tend to be more successful than those that, for instance, include words like "obviously." It is not uncommon for files that clearly violate various policies to be kept, simply because the nomination is vague or confusing, and would require more time to consider than we have resources for.

Closely related to this, though, is a really good software development opportunity. It's not exciting and would not grab any headlines, but it would make a big difference: if the workflow for processing deletion requests were made smoother, those engaging in it could get more done, spending more time considering each request and less time clicking buttons, typing code, etc; and if it were made more transparent and better documented (including useful links built into wiki pages and templates), it would be easier for new people (say, those from this list) to get involved and help process the nominations.

If you're interested in this topic, you might want to look through this list of notes and links I've kept on my Commons user page. Not all are relevant to this discussion, but many are: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth#Interesting_stuff

Finally, in response to Sarah's message -- I will certainly try to watch for an announcement about the Privacy Policy rewrite and post to this list when it happens!

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Pete,

I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts, with no indication whatsoever that the women concerned are aware of and have consented to the upload, or indeed that the images are public domain.

It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in watching how what goes.

The problem with "identifiable" is that when someone posts revenge porn on Commons, it matters not one jot whether the face of the woman performing whatever sex act is depicted is visible or not. It is enough for the former boyfriend to tell everyone in his and his ex-girlfriend's social circle on Facebook or wherever about the image to ruin her life.

Andreas

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

A similar statement from the Foundation about the need to reject racism, sexism and homophobia among editors -- and to remember that this is an educational project -- might go a long way to adjusting attitudes.

<snip>

...

In response to issues with the ethical management of photographs the WMF Board did in fact pass a resolution specifically about photographs of identifiable people:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_peopl...

Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about

...

"private situations / places". But it calls explicitly for strengthening and developing the relevant policy on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_peopl...

There _are_ thoughtful people on Commons who could be engaged individually to help further develop and refine this policy to elaborate on ethical issues like the one which started this thread. And there are thoughtful people on this list who could help drive that conversation.

I think some discussion of the outcomes of this resolution might be productive. As a frequent participant in deletion decisions on Wikimedia Commons, my very strong sense is that we do well at complying with the letter of that particular resolution resolution. In my experience, when somebody nominates an unclothed photo of a clearly identifiable subject for deletion, and there is no evidence of the person's consent, the file is generally deleted without any particular resistance.

Unfortunately, this leaves two major gaps: (1) cases where reasonable people could and do disagree about whether or not somebody is identifiable, and (2) cases where those concerned about the subject find a particular photo problematic irrespective of whether or not he or she is identifiable.

I believe the Board acted with very good intentions with that resolution, but there is an unintended consequence that identifiability has become the focus of many of these discussions. I think board action to address this problem would be welcome and effective; but I would hope that new language be carefully considered and vetted before passage to try to anticipate and avoid further undesirable consequences.

...

It's also worth noting on the subject of Commons that WMF did _not_ withdraw the Controversial Content resolution from May 2011, only the personal image hiding feature component thereof. The resolution also contained other recommendations consistent with reinforcing the educational scope of Wikimedia Commons:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content

...

"We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement."

"We urge the Wikimedia Foundation and community to work together in developing and implementing further new tools for using and curating Commons, to make the tasks of reviewing, deleting, categorizing, uploading and using images easier.

In my view, this resolution missed the biggest area of opportunity, which can be done by anyone: to develop essays, guidelines, or policies on Commons that describe common scenarios, and outline effective outcomes. Those of us processing deletion nominations on Commons are drinking from a firehose; by my estimation, every day has dozens of nominations, some days well over 100. There are probably 5-10 regular participants and administrators processing these, with others dropping in more occasionally. The key lesson in that is that carefully phrased nominations that make reference to policies and guidelines tend to be more successful than those that, for instance, include words like "obviously." It is not uncommon for files that clearly violate various policies to be kept, simply because the nomination is vague or confusing, and would require more time to consider than we have resources for.

Closely related to this, though, is a really good software development opportunity. It's not exciting and would not grab any headlines, but it would make a big difference: if the workflow for processing deletion requests were made smoother, those engaging in it could get more done, spending more time considering each request and less time clicking buttons, typing code, etc; and if it were made more transparent and better documented (including useful links built into wiki pages and templates), it would be easier for new people (say, those from this list) to get involved and help process the nominations.

If you're interested in this topic, you might want to look through this list of notes and links I've kept on my Commons user page. Not all are relevant to this discussion, but many are: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth#Interesting_stuff

Finally, in response to Sarah's message -- I will certainly try to watch for an announcement about the Privacy Policy rewrite and post to this list when it happens!

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

---

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

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Pete,

I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts, with no indication whatsoever that the women concerned are aware of and have consented to the upload,

<snip>

Andreas, you are of course correct. I believe two factors address the distance between what you and I said:

(1) The word "consent" is not qualified in the Board's resolution, which invites this critical question in every case: are we talking about consent to be photographed, or consent to have the photo released under a free license on a widely viewed, open access web site? This is obviously a question of critical importance. The resolution's language doesn't provide much guidance. In practice, the places where Commons participants do well are with photos where it's visually clear that the subject may not have consented to being photographed at all, in the first place (i.e., no reason to believe the subject is even aware of the camera).

The resolution wording is:

---o0o---

We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

---o0o---

I don't see anything ambiguous about that.

This topless image is typical:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely_F3247.JPG

Categorised under "Hooters". Zero evidence of model consent for the use of this image.

Here is another of the same woman:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely.JPG

This was okayed by Commons administrator Mattbuck:

---o0o---

This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

---o0o---

Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.

As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a fool to waste my time contributing there.

(2) The existence of files on Commons, vs. the ones where somebody takes the trouble to write a well-formed nomination for deletion, is a huge one. My comments concern only the latter; but of course, there are many thousands of files on Commons that could or should be nominated for deletion, but haven't. It's important to acknowledge that while such cases may reflect the intent of the uploading individual, they by no stretch of the imagination reflect the considered judgment of the Commons community.

Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to intervene.

This reminds me of the defence proffered by some with respect to the recent women's categorisation controversy following Amanda Filipacchi's op-ed about Wikipedia's sexism in the New York Times: that these categorisations were in violation of obscure guidelines.

Having guidelines does not absolve an organisation from responsibility for its actions when in practice it makes no effort to enforce them.

You are simply in denial. Address the reality, rather than hiding behind a policy that is not observed in practice.

Andreas

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:

Hi, I have some comments inline. ---o0o---

...

This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

---o0o---

Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.

As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a

...

fool to waste my time contributing there.

Andreas, just curious, have you tried nominating anything like this for deletion with citing the board statement? I think we start experimenting with that (I can't do that right now, as I'm in an airport restaurant and not feeling comfortable looking at that image right now!). I'm curious how that would work.

We could develop a process:

1. Nominate for deletion with that clause called into play (since our

challenges for being non-education or out of scope will be challenged most likely) 2) If challenged on discovering model consent, generic email letter developed to "email" Flickr account owner (since that's often the plague of this) 3) If account is deleted, the image should be deleted assuming no other acceptance of model agreement is able to be discovered based on anonymity of model and deletion of Flickr account. 4) Fight the good fight on Commons.

Perhaps we can develop something like that. Seriously, for years, it's often been..me, pete, Kevin, and Kaldari (and if you've been involved, forgive me for not listing you) who have nominated content for deletion.

Again "stop bitching, start a revolution" comes into play here.

I have wasted too many hours already arguing deletion cases which were then closed as "Keep" by Mattbuck.

How about we ask Erik, who started Wikimedia Commons, to nominate them, citing the board resolution? This would make a stronger impression.

What do you say, Erik? Or do you feel these images should remain on Commons?

Just for reference, the images we are talking about are here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

All are Flickr imports, uploaded pseudonymously. None have evidence of model consent for use on Wikimedia projects. The women concerned are most likely unaware that the images are on Commons.

Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment

...

of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to intervene.

This is where it falls two ways IMHO:

1. It's up to US to start *trying* to implement said compliance
2. If it's not being complied too, we need to know who to contact

And if that means sending a crap ton of emails to legal@wikimedia.org, so be it. Right? Because we aren't informed of any other type of action to be taken in the TOS, or whatever other policies developed by the board. Unlike copyright infringement, nothing is suggested on what *we* can do when this stuff is happening.

We can try to implement, and then when it fails, directly contact the Foundation.

Seriously, sitting here on this mailing list is great, we're getting conversation started (Again) about it, but...we need to do more!!!!!

-Sarah

--

*Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com*

---

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

Pete,

Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we can request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.

Andreas

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

The resolution wording is:

...

---o0o---

We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

---o0o---

I don't see anything ambiguous about that.

I find it highly ambiguous, and while I tend to agree with you that probably the majority of nude images on Commons should be deleted due to lack of explicit and verifiable declarations of consent, I do not feel the wording quoted above would be helpful in persuading others of that. (In addition, the absence of a clearly documented process for obtaining and expressing consent doesn't help. Again, something that anybody can do, very little technical knowledge required.)

"Consent" is a verb that is only useful in its transitive form. It is meaningless to say "the subject consents." Consents *to what*? "...for the use of such media" is not specific. Also, "we feel" is not language that lends itself to strong project-specific policies.

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

---

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

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the Commons, community?

Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect community consensus, but guide it.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Commons community were consulted prior to the announcement of the existing wording either.

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Pete,

Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we

can

...

request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.

Andreas

---

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

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

...

Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the Commons, community?

Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect community consensus, but guide it.

It's not that clear-cut. Again, I think the TOU rewrite is a good example of how the community and the board can make progress together effectively. A great deal of wisdom and passion resides in the global community that has brought Wikimedia to the point it is at today, alongside more frustrating elements. But in this case, I would say something initiated on this list (by one part of the community) and improved upon by others, in other venues, would be a great way to draft a proposed resolution for the board's consideration.

...

Well, I'll have a go then:

---o0o---

We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media *on Wikimedia sites*, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

---o0o---

Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that editors are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in private situations to Wikimedia websites.

Do you agree with the principle? Or do you think editors should continue to upload images taken in a private place or situation to Wikimedia sites without the knowledge and consent of the people depicted?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that

editors

...

are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in private situations to Wikimedia websites.

Define "private situations".

Thank you.

It may be helpful if I quote the entire resolution, as the word "private" occurs several times in it:

---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.

However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

- Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable peoplehttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.

Approved 10-0.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_peopl...

---o0o---

The proposed change is merely to add the words "on Wikimedia sites" in the sentence "We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media *on Wikimedia sites*, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project."

COM:IDENT explores this in more detail, speaking of a "reasonable expectation of privacy":

---o0o---

The *right of privacy* is the right to be left alone and not to be made the subject of public scrutiny without consent. The right to privacy is enshrined in several international laws though the details with regard to photographs vary from country to country. Images must not unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life.

The law on privacy concerning photographs can be crudely divided into whether the photograph was taken in a private or public place. A *private place* is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a *public place* is somewhere where the subject has no such expectation. The terms are unrelated to whether the land is privately or publicly owned. For example, a tent on a beach is a private place on public land and a concert is a public place on private property. A place may be publicly accessible but still retain an expectation of privacy concerning photography, for example a hospital ward during visiting hours. Whether the place is private or not may also depend on the situation at the time: for example that same hospital ward would have been a public place during a tour before it opens.

In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places and publish those photos. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual.

In many countries the subject's consent *is* needed to just take a picture, and/or to publish it and/or to use it commercially *even if the person is in a public place*. Further nuances may include the age of the subject, what the subject is doing at the time, whether the subject is famous, whether the image concerns news of public interest, etc. See Commons:Country specific consent requirementshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements for details.

Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT#The_right_of_privacy

---o0o---

That seems like quite an adequate description.

Andreas

It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in watching how what goes.

Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_...

Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:

One drink:

Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image Keep !vote saying it’s censorship Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment. Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just wait a while. Closed by Mattbuck as keep.

Two drinks:

User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote. Keep !vote from regular participant on this list. Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like sticking it to the Man!” vein. Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get over that. Closed by another admin as keep.

Three drinks:

Closed by Mattbuck as delete.

Daniel Case

I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that "closed by Mattbuck as delete" probably ought to be a "finish your drink" qualifier...

-Fluffernutter

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:

...

...

It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:

...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50

...

Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in watching how what goes.

Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_...

Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:

One drink:

Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image Keep !vote saying it’s censorship Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment. Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just wait a while. Closed by Mattbuck as keep.

Two drinks:

User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote. Keep !vote from regular participant on this list. Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like sticking it to the Man!” vein. Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get over that. Closed by another admin as keep.

Three drinks:

Closed by Mattbuck as delete.

Daniel Case

---

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

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:

I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here.

Cheers,

Russavia

The message you posted at the DR,

---o0o---

*Comment* This nomination is a somewhat pointish trolling nomination as noted herehttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003644.html . *There is NO evidence of this being revenge porn.* The only suggestion of such is here on the gendergap mailing listhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003623.html by User:Jayen466 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466 (so take anything from that source with a grain of salt). Now, let's look at these unfounded comments on this being "revenge porn"; it does not add up; it makes for nice emotional fallacy, but not much else. If one looks at the sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoguy412001/sets/ of photos taken by the photographer are obviously as part of their amateur photography. All EXIF data checks out (same camera being used), and Google and Tineye searches reveal nothing of concern. It is somewhat clear say from this sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/photoguy412001/sets/72157629460674458/ (and other sets) that the photos are part of an amateur photoshoot. The consent issue is easily rectified by contacting the photographer and asking if they have consent to publish the photos...I am sure someone will do so. russaviahttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Russavia (talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia) 03:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_...

---o0o---

is based on a misunderstanding of what I said in the linked post. The point I made there about revenge porn was in response to earlier comments by Pete Forsyth and concerned images of women who are not identifiable (my point being that for revenge porn to "work", it is not necessary for the woman's face to be shown). It did not pertain to these images, in which the women clearly *are* identifiable.

I believe these images should be deleted if there is no evidence that the models are aware of and have consented to their upload to Wikimedia sites. There is no evidence that they have consented to their upload to Flickr either, of course.

The original categories applied by the pseudonymous uploader on Wikimedia Commons ("Big Titts", "Titts", "Naked" etc.) suggest a purely exploitative mindset.

A difference between Flickr and Wikimedia that comes into play here is that on Flickr, the images are visible only to users who have signed into a Flickr account whose preferences are set to viewing adult images, restricting their audience to Flickr's adult images community, whereas on Wikimedia, they are visible to all and sundry.

Erik,

I will answer your questions, only too happy to, and you are free to pass my answers on to others within the foundation. Because it is something that I have trying addressing with others in the foundation in the past, but which has been ignored by way of no reply.

But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group.

Is that ok with you?

Cheers,

Russavia

Erik, et al

Just a heads up that I have responded to your question at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia#Evidence_of_consent

I invite all gender gap list members to come to Commons to read what is written, and get involved.

Cheers,

Russavia

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:

...

But I would prefer that you ask these questions on Commons, perhaps on my talk page, which I will answer there, and we can then move to a suitable Commons venue, so that discussion can be opened up to the community-at-large, instead of being limited to this small group.

That's fine, will repost on your talk page.

Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

---

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

Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

At this point, I'm so over fretting about "porny" stuff on Commons - I'm more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of "our" websites, then I'm not really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved. (Meaning "naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on Commons under a free license.")

-Sarah

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Re...), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than clothed people.

But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked people on Commons is a very different thing than having naked people used to illustrate an encyclopedia article. And this particular example is one of many, many thousands of images of nudity on Commons, some of which are far more problematic. I would urge anyone wanting to take this issue on to spend some time processing maybe 20 or 30 of the dozens of deletion requests that come through Commons on a daily basis. It's a good way to get a sense of the scope of the issues involved, and the thinking around what does and doesn't get kept. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:

Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

At this point, I'm so over fretting about "porny" stuff on Commons - I'm more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of "our" websites, then I'm not really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved. (Meaning "naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on Commons under a free license.")

-Sarah

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:

...

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Re...), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

--

*Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com*

---

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

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Pete,

I'd invite you to run a Google image search for Bagby Hot Springs

<snip>

Please don't confuse my offhand remark for an intent to change the way the article's illustrated. I just wanted to offer some context -- Bagby is locally well known as a place where nudity is (often) the norm. I attach no value judgment to that fact, but it's a fact that can be verified in any number of reliable sources, including the front page the springs' own web site.

-Pete

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than clothed people.

But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked people on Commons is a very different thing than having naked people used to illustrate an encyclopedia article. And this particular example is one of many, many thousands of images of nudity on Commons, some of which are far more problematic. I would urge anyone wanting to take this issue on to spend some time processing maybe 20 or 30 of the dozens of deletion requests that come through Commons on a daily basis. It's a good way to get a sense of the scope of the issues involved, and the thinking around what does and doesn't get kept. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:

...

Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

At this point, I'm so over fretting about "porny" stuff on Commons - I'm more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of "our" websites, then I'm not really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved. (Meaning "naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on Commons under a free license.")

-Sarah

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.comwrote:

...

The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Re...), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe

--

*Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *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

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