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
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(a)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the directive to develop an image suppression feature was rescinded a year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_featu…
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth
<peteforsyth(a)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_Lesbia…
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:Sexua…
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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>