Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the "documenting history" one.
This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald. This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a principle makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues that they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing that when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn or a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a stack of corpses from a broader video.
If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public as a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project, but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other projects, I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that meaningful change cannot come from the current Commons administration without outside pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I will mention this discussion on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment can do so here.
For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page, here's a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage for a day - warning, it is, well, corpses - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot_...
Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of least astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses?
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from the video?
----- Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
Have you discussed this on commons, or just trying to bypass them?
On Friday, May 9, 2014, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the "documenting history" one.
This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald. This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a principle makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues that they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing that when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn or a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a stack of corpses from a broader video.
If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public as a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project, but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other projects, I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that meaningful change cannot come from the current Commons administration without outside pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I will mention this discussion on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment can do so here.
For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page, here's a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage for a day - warning, it is, well, corpses -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot_...
Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of least astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses?
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from the video?
Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content _______________________________________________ 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 javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
There are multiple comments on Common's mainpage talk about this, as well as one at their administrator's noticeboard. As I mentioned in my first post, since Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other projects, I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent talk pages on commons. Additionally, I'm not sure that meaningful change can come from the current Commons administration without outside pressure, so I've started a discussion here. As said in my OP, I've explicitly mentioned this thread on Common's mainpage talk so that interested commonites who desire to comment can do so here or there.
------ Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:15 PM, K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
Have you discussed this on commons, or just trying to bypass them?
On Friday, May 9, 2014, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats
than
I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world
in a
department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to
operate
on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already
changed
to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not
stacks
of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption
of
the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of
great
historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have
appeared
on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same
video
is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind
the
video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're
about
to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst
into
tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an
incredibly
important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an
effort
to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some
degree
of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the "documenting history" one.
This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content
that,
while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click
on
Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at
Buchenwald.
This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a
principle
makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues
that
they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing
that
when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn
or
a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a
stack
of corpses from a broader video.
If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public
as
a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project, but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other
projects,
I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that
meaningful
change cannot come from the current Commons administration without
outside
pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I will mention this discussion on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment
can
do so here.
For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page,
here's
a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage for a day - warning, it is, well, corpses -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot_...
Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of least astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses?
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible
from
the video?
Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
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 javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Sent from Gmail Mobile on my iPod. _______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from the video?
Presumably the person who set up the templates thought that was the best
frame to use.[1] You should ask him what his reasoning was.
It looks like a single person is handling Commons' MOTD rotation,[2][3] so I would guess that very few people actually saw what the thumb would be beforehand.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Motd/2014-05-08_thu... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Media_of_the_day/Archive_1#N... [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pristurus&oldi...
Maybe a simple solution to this is just having more process for which still frame to use for any MOTD video.
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible
from
the video?
Presumably the person who set up the templates thought that was the best
frame to use.[1] You should ask him what his reasoning was.
It looks like a single person is handling Commons' MOTD rotation,[2][3] so I would guess that very few people actually saw what the thumb would be beforehand.
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Motd/2014-05-08_thu... [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Media_of_the_day/Archive_1#N... [3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pristurus&oldi... _______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
Maybe a simple solution to this is just having more process for which still frame to use for any MOTD video.
Sure, that would be ideal. But as Benjamin points out, there seems to be an issue with participation in general in these selections and updating.
Hi,
I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this, and that you are even not active on Commons. If there is something which you don't like, come to Commons and participate! Sending you opinion accross without doing anything won't help...
Yann
2014-05-09 7:40 GMT+05:30 Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com:
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the "documenting history" one.
This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald. This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a principle makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues that they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing that when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn or a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a stack of corpses from a broader video.
If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public as a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project, but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other projects, I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that meaningful change cannot come from the current Commons administration without outside pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I will mention this discussion on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment can do so here.
For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page, here's a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage for a day - warning, it is, well, corpses - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot_...
Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of least astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses?
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from the video?
Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Yann -
Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations. As have been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's MOTD on that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one of the five languages in which context for the video was provided. Combining that fact with the fact Commons' has a history of not wanting to comply with WMF board resolutions and the fact that the last time I was heavily active on Commons we stumbled across a page where a couple sysops were chatting about whether or not they could indef me for being disruptive (when I was, pretty literally, only trying to enforce WMF board resolutions,) I view bringing it up at a wider venue as absolutely appropriate, especially given that without this discussion, I'd bet that Fuzheado's and Eddie's ignored comments would still be, well, ignored, rather than there now being a rather active discussion on that page.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this, and that you are even not active on Commons. If there is something which you don't like, come to Commons and participate! Sending you opinion accross without doing anything won't help...
Yann
2014-05-09 7:40 GMT+05:30 Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com:
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats
than
I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world
in a
department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to
operate
on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already
changed
to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not
stacks
of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption
of
the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of
great
historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have
appeared
on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same
video
is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind
the
video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're
about
to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst
into
tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an
incredibly
important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an
effort
to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some
degree
of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the "documenting history" one.
This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content
that,
while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click
on
Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at
Buchenwald.
This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a
principle
makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues
that
they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing
that
when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn
or
a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a
stack
of corpses from a broader video.
If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public
as
a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project, but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other
projects,
I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that
meaningful
change cannot come from the current Commons administration without
outside
pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I will mention this discussion on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment
can
do so here.
For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page,
here's
a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage for a day - warning, it is, well, corpses -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot_...
Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of least astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses?
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible
from
the video?
Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
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
Hi Kevin:
Sorry if you are ill treated in Commons earlier. But hope you aware that there is lot of people in Commons still trying to renovate it by positive contributions, self criticisms and listening to outside opinions. And hope you aware that the last Board resolution is an answer to our requests. ( https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people)
That said, Commons is a multi cultural project. So there is chance for friction between the English community in many areas. In my culture (I'm from India), it is common that pictures of brutal murders are published on newspaper front pages. I assume culture in other places may different. Anyway we are open for discussions and willing to make changes.
I had alredy commented on the main page and opened a discussion on FPC talk since MOTD talk is not active. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#...) Every body is welcome to there. I agree the current handling of MOTD is not good considering the importance of the main page.
My only complaint is trying to generalize this matter. The more you generalize matters, the more "some people who think Commons=them" make benefit it from.
Sincerely expecting to your contributions and a warm welcome to the "New Commons".
Regards, Jee
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yann -
Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations. As have been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's MOTD on that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one of the five languages in which context for the video was provided. Combining that fact with the fact Commons' has a history of not wanting to comply with WMF board resolutions and the fact that the last time I was heavily active on Commons we stumbled across a page where a couple sysops were chatting about whether or not they could indef me for being disruptive (when I was, pretty literally, only trying to enforce WMF board resolutions,) I view bringing it up at a wider venue as absolutely appropriate, especially given that without this discussion, I'd bet that Fuzheado's and Eddie's ignored comments would still be, well, ignored, rather than there now being a rather active discussion on that page.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this, and that you are even not active on Commons. If there is something which you don't like, come to Commons and participate! Sending you opinion accross without doing anything won't help...
Yann
2014-05-09 7:40 GMT+05:30 Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com:
Hi all -
This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats
than
I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world
in a
department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my
own
opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process
of
getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone
actively
employed by a major university, and not just as an editor.
Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to
operate
on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000
people
lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already
changed
to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not
stacks
of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the
Commons
frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the
actual
video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption
of
the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link.
I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of
great
historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be
on
Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have
appeared
on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same
video
is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind
the
video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're
about
to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst
into
tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an
incredibly
important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an
effort
to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some
degree
of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's
front
page today leans a lot more towards the "shock site" aspect than the "documenting history" one.
This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content
that,
while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been
framed
in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to
the
average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the
WMF-board
endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to
click
on
Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at
Buchenwald.
This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a
principle
makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or
my
colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues
that
they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not)
recommend
using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing
that
when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime
porn
or
a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of
absolutely
no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to
highlight a
video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a
stack
of corpses from a broader video.
If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and
GLAM
world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public
as
a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that project content decisions are normally left up to the individual
project,
but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other
projects,
I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent commons. Because of that, and because I'm not sure that
meaningful
change cannot come from the current Commons administration without
outside
pressure, I'm starting a discussion here. I will mention this
discussion
on Commons' mainpage talkpage, so that Commonites who desire to comment
can
do so here.
For those curious to see the media now that it's off the front page,
here's
a snapshot of what was on Commons' frontpage for a day - warning, it
is,
well, corpses -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#mediaviewer/File:Snapshot_...
Is there anyone who thinks that it doesn't violate the principle of
least
astonishment to open commons's frontpage and see a stack of corpses?
Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible
from
the video?
Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
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
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
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yann -
Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations.
Well, no, it isnt.
Wikidata also has a direct effect on the other projects.
A very large part of the reason those outside collaborations with Commons exist is that Commons is a project and community which can be compared to Flickr Commons. The other large part is that Commons is attached to Wikipedia, but dont discount the value that the Commons community provides to these collaborations.
The inclusion policies and practises of the other wikis all influence and reflect on each other. e.g. English Wikipedia used to contain lots of articles consisting of public domain poems with very little prose, and sometimes translations; now the full text is on Wikisource if the full text is not encyclopedic, and sometimes the articles are deleted from en.wp for not being notable.
Perhaps you recall the German Wikipedia put a vulva on their front page. This offended many, caused a large debate here on wikimedia-l, and there was international news about it also IIRC. http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-lett...
All projects are occasionally going to press the boundaries. This is a good thing, despite this meaning sometimes they will make a decision that other project communities feel reflects badly on them.
-- John Vandenberg
On May 12, 2014 9:10 PM, "Kevin Gorman" kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
the fact Commons' has a history of not wanting to comply with WMF board resolutions
Whoa there, I'm going to have to reach for my biggest [citation needed] flag.
Commons isn't a thing that speaks with a single voice, and -- more importantly -- with literally hundreds of files proposed for deletion every day, there are bound to be plenty of decisions that are either wrong, or debatable. Whatever experience you're generalizing on to make this sweeping statement of an entire project "not wanting to comply," I am pretty confident you are making a leap of logic or two in there.
That said, how about a friendly wager, that will allow us to explore this space and generate a larger sample, that we can all observe for patterns?
For every decision on Commons that you think demonstrates a desire to resist a WMF board resolution, I will supply 5 decisions that demonstrate a thoughtful balance among the needs of copyright holders, people depicted in photos, Wikimedia projects, and other stakeholders.
We can go back and forth as long as you want -- I'd suggest you start off with maybe 5 examples, and if you do I'll find 25. But do as many as you'd like.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 13 May 2014 07:27, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On May 12, 2014 9:10 PM, "Kevin Gorman" kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
the fact Commons' has a history of not wanting to comply with WMF board resolutions
Whoa there, I'm going to have to reach for my biggest [citation needed] flag.
Commons isn't a thing that speaks with a single voice, and -- more importantly -- with literally hundreds of files proposed for deletion every day, there are bound to be plenty of decisions that are either wrong, or debatable. Whatever experience you're generalizing on to make this sweeping statement of an entire project "not wanting to comply," I am pretty confident you are making a leap of logic or two in there.
+1 I have no recollection of becoming part of a Borg collective.
...
We can go back and forth as long as you want -- I'd suggest you start off with maybe 5 examples, and if you do I'll find 25. But do as many as you'd like.
Let's not go there. This email thread is TLDR, hard to follow, and (as has been said by several others already) would be much better as an on-wiki narrative thread in one of the many places on Commons where discuss policies and issues of interest to Commons contributors; most of us are not subscribed to this email list.
Fae
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not go there. This email thread is TLDR, hard to follow, and (as has been said by several others already) would be much better as an on-wiki narrative thread in one of the many places on Commons where discuss policies and issues of interest to Commons contributors; most of us are not subscribed to this email list.
My suggestion was specifically intended for Kevin, who has made the extraordinary claim above. I agree though, the exercise is much better suited to a wiki page than an email list discussion, if he's interested in playing along.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Hi,
As have been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's
MOTD on that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one of the five languages in which context for the video was provided.
1/ Which projects? A GlobalUsage on the current MOTD (as well as the one from yesterday and the one from tomorrow) seems to indicate that no Wikimedia projects transclude the MOTD.
2/ Assuming they exist, do these projects *also* use the actual thumbtime hardcoded for its display as MOTD on Wikimedia Commons?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org