[Gendergap] So this is how Commons works?

[Sydney Poore]

WMF projects should be a leader in assuring that people's human rights are
enforced. Right now WMF policies do not reflect best practices. But the WMF
Board and staff are moving in the right direction.

The problem is that the a large part of the community holds the idea of free
speak as a higher value than protecting the rights of people who might be
harmed.

The solution is more discussion where people can be educated about all the
ramifications of hosting controversial content. And also bringing more
people into the community who hold a more moderate view about the importance
of free speech, and who will be better able to make more balanced decisions
when we must weigh all the differing ideals and ethical considerations.

There are some essays around, I think. Read one recently about hosting
images of people. Another one would be good on the topic of voyeurism.

Sydney


On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder whether it would be worth developing a guideline, or just
> writing an essay about it on Commons. Trouble is, I know so little
> about how the Commons works -- I don't even know how to find their
> list of policies.
>
> My thinking is that voyeurism is increasingly becoming a criminal
> offence, and an essay about it might help to identify the kinds of
> images we should be wary of uploading. For example, in the UK, a
> person commits a criminal offence if:
>
> "(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,
>
> "(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for
> the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B
> doing the act, and
>
> "(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with
> that intention."
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67
>
> The problem with all of this on Wikimedia is the anonymity factor.
> People could say "I am the model and I hereby give consent." I don't
> know how we get round that.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:45, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110912/d7b1c501/attachment-0001.htm