[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sarah Stierch]

This FloNight(Sydney), and Fred, for your thoughts.

Fred, when I posted the original deletion request it was based on Commons
deletion policies - uneducational, quality, orphaning, personal photo, and
unnecessary nudity (i.e. tasteless nude shot that the guy "claims" he took
of this woman). How can we even trust that the uploader didn't take it from
an online personals website, craigslist, or perhaps an email from a dating
website - who knows. (Slippery slope..OoooOOOooh!!!)

Policy does need to be reexamined. I think Pete brought this up, and we've
talked a bit about it. I do think that Commons has policies changes that
need to be looked at - and I wholeheartedly believe this photo, and many
others, qualify even under the current Commons policies, but I am "viewing
them in my own way" just like those who support keeping those images view
them their own way.

One thing Wikimedia as a whole *suffers* from is no "solidity" when it comes
to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken,
changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem.

Thanks Sydney for bringing it up with the admin. I have to admit, Commons
does make me anxious (I'm so paranoid about backlash and harassment from
Commons, after the last shit storm that I started that was forwarded to the
Commons-L list) so I appreciate you speaking up about it!

Sarah
who really needs to stop letting a bunch of dudes behind computers piss her
off so much. ;)


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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110911/7b083e1b/attachment-0001.htm