Pete, you know the "toothbrush" image you talk about on your blog still shows up on a Commons search for "electric toothbrush", right? It's in Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrusheshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_people_with_electric_toothbrusheswhich is in turn a subcategory of Category:People with electric toothbrusheshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_with_electric_toothbrushesso it shows up on any search of "electric toothbrush".
Seems the whole category thing really isn't as solved as well as people think. It still comes up as image #4 on a multimedia search of enwiki for "electric toothbrush" and about #45 for a multimedia search of "toothbrush". Even though the title was changed, it remains in the category that gives high-ranking searches.
Risker/Anne
On 15 May 2014 18:20, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin, Andreas, et al:
It took me a couple days, but I've assembled my list of files, exceeding the 10 I had committed to: http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-commons-is-far-from-ethically-broken/
I hope this annotated list of interesting deletion discussions on Commons is helpful to those who don't regularly participate; there is so much activity there that can be difficult to track. Of course, it's not close to exhaustive; I'd welcome suggestions of additional examples to highlight, and if anybody wants to copy this to a wiki page for further expansion that's fine by me.
Andreas, in response to your last message -- I'm perfectly fine with the examples you provided! I just happen to think they do a better job supporting my position ("Commons is healthy and productive") than they do yours ("Commons is broken"). I understand you disagree, and that's fine.
A final detail, directed mainly to Wil (and anybody interested in the Board resolution that's been discussed): I don't think it's been mentioned that the directive to develop an image suppression feature was rescinded a year later:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_image_hiding_featur...
Anyway -- I hope we can have a bit more discussion about the decision-making practices at Commons, informed by a wider variety of specific examples than we have had so far in this discussion thread.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large
number
of
decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often
repeatedly.
David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else please drop it.
Example 1:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian...)
Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear
the
models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two
prior
nominations.
Example 2:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual...
Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept.
Models
shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe