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(a)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_R…), 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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_R…), 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe <topazbutterfly(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

---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.

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.

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

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)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 Andreas is one of the few editors who does a lot to try to counter these

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

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_Certai…

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_peop… 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_peop…

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.

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

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

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.

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

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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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...)

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_pha… 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.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddl… 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. -- Infrogmation<http://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? --Conti<http://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 set<http://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 --moogsi<http://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 Faigl<http://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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

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 &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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 &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;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

I would suggest that if you have a weekly "your project is broken" thread something is going terribly wrong. _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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 &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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.… 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

> OR <<

with an expectation of privacy.

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

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_Habi…

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 - ?)

Dear Pete, On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: wrote: blunt in a 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Russavia &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: 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? >

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

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 &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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 Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote: 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_Stol… *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that compelling enough. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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_peop…

"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_peop… 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.

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.

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: <snip> Erring on the side of conservatism, the Board used language about 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. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: <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).

(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.

Hi, I have some comments inline. ---o0o--- As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a 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.

Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

The resolution wording is: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: can _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. > >

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: editors Define "private situations". Thank you.

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.

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 &lt;dancase(a)frontiernet.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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 Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Russavia &lt;russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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_R…), 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

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 &lt;topazbutterfly(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com* _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete, I'd invite you to run a Google image search for Bagby Hot Springs <snip>

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 &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap