[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sydney Poore]

No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the appropriate
permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has not obvious signs
of being a copyright violation. People have been in disagreement about
whether images that are "controversial content" should be be held to a
higher level of scrutiny. Some people say that we are be biased if we
require a higher level of scrutiny for images of naked people. I disagree,
but think that we really need to have a higher level of scrutiny for all
images with identifiable people.  By requiring model consent, we would solve
a large part of the problems with the images on Commons.

Sydney Poore

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:17, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudherve at x-mail.net>
> wrote:
> > IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have
> > better policy to work with.
>
> Do we have specific Commons policies on voyeurism and invasion of privacy?
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110912/1f6509ad/attachment.htm