That reminds me again of a really cool Guardian ad that ran on UK TV years back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsccRkLLzU
It's a good illustration of how assumptions can be wrong, and how framing can predispose you. (Captioning and file naming are part of that, of course.)
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
Kevin,
Feel free to have one of the people who don't have a nasty head injury ask me the question. That would be fine, and I would actually prefer it. Given your head injury, I'm actually a little surprised that your friends did think of asking me themselves under the circumstances.
Cheers
Russavia
Cutting to the chase, bearing in mind the location and other visual cues, I personally would also assume that the description was indeed apt. In other words, if I saw those women standing there, I'd assume they were prostitutes too.
However, assumptions can be wrong. It would be wise for Commons to err on the side of caution, and not label potentially identifiable women as prostitutes on the basis of an unknown individual's upload to Commons.
This is a good example:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_02_Memphis...
She might well be a prostitute. She might also (for example) just have had a tiff with her ex-boyfriend, who snapped this picture. To be wrong in one out of a hundred cases like that is one time too many.
In topic areas like that, I'd be far more comfortable relying on an image from a verifiable source like the one you mentioned in the deletion discussion:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:9.000919_Pattaya_streetscene5.jpg