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