Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. - Wikimedia-l

9 May 2014

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