[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[aude]

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'd be concerned about this user's track record of uploads, this the only
one not deleted:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jonghap

Presumably if there is/was File:Korean Vulva3.jpg and File:Korean
Vulva2.jpg, then there was File:Korean Vulva1.jpg which is gone now.

On copyright issues alone, I am concerned about this image, as well as
regarding consent, given the private location of the photo.

Cheers,
Katie

Cheers,
Katie



>
> 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
>
>


-- 
President, Wiki Society of Washington, DC Inc.
http://wikidc.org
@wikidc / @wikimania2012
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110911/6ecfe32f/attachment-0001.htm