[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sydney Poore]

See the standard for medical images from the American Medical College of
Genetics

http://www.acmg.net/resources/policies/pol-020.pdf

I worked with people with high risk pregnancy and sometimes we took pictures
of the baby if it had a genetic disorder. But we always got consent first.

Sydney

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/d666f052/attachment.htm