[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sydney Poore]

I left Yann a message on his talk page asking him to reconsider.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yann#Korean_Vulva

I sincerely hope that she did give consent and knows that it is on Commons.
Otherwise we are exploiting her.

I disagree that the person is not recognizable. It would be very unethical
to upload this image without this person's consent. True exploitation of the
person.

I feel very strong about this point because of the my knowledge of past
exploitation of people in medical images in textbooks and medical journals,
some of them nude. It was absolutely wrong when it was done in the name of
education and it is wrong for us to do it now.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight



On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>wrote:

> This is a NSFW photo....
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg
>
> Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.
>
> An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid reason
> for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It has
> been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or
> "obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason).
>
> I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any project
> since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor
> description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an
> "educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]]
> article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow
> drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot..
> come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality
> photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom
> for the project..if it's that in demand.
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg>
>
> I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/
>
> Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge
> something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong? Regardless
> of the subject, I don't understand why the admin would declare the peoples
> reasons in valid based on my knowledge of the Commons policies...: "Commons
> is not a porn site", "private location, lack of model release" etc...
>
> (And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original
> rager when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels"
> category..)...so no need to reprimand me....I've curbed my 'tude!)
>
> Any help would be great,
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org>
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110911/b5b1260f/attachment.htm