[Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

Jane Darnell jane023 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 15 09:24:16 UTC 2013

Craig, Phoebe, and Yaroslav, those are all very good points. Until
Google improves its image-recognition software, most photos appearing
in google images are triggered by text in the image description. It
should be easy to tag problematic image desriptions, especially when
more people than the subject are recognizable in the photo. Certainly
identification of people in the text is completely unnecessary if they
are non-notable, so introducing "tiers of notability" might be an
interesting idea (though someone marginally notable in the US is
probably not notable elsewhere and the other way around)

I still think that we need more discovery tools to allow people (BLP
subjects and their extended contacts) to find out more about the text
or photo they are interested in. We should do a lot more on complaint
prevention, because as Phoebe said, we just don't have enough time to
handle the complaints.

2013/12/15, Craig Franklin <cfranklin at halonetwork.net>:
> On 15 December 2013 02:54, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin
>> <cfranklin at halonetwork.net> wrote:
>> > Hi Jane,
>> >
>> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP
>> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users
>> >> swing their weight around"
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the
>> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers.  All
>> ten
>> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would
>> > be
>> > inadequate.
>> The list of problems becomes even longer for images.
>> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about
>> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography.  This
>> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such
>> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion
>> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people.  It
>> should, but ...
> Part of the problem in my view is that there is no notability requirements
> for identifiable persons appearing in images.  While in the great majority
> of cases this is not really a problem, it does lead to very problematic
> things like pictures of people in states of undress, engaging in sexual
> activity, or doing something else their employer, family or local community
> might not be okay with, without any evidence of ongoing consent for that
> image to remain available.  The only mechanism for getting rid of these is
> effectively for the subject of the image to email a stranger, provide
> evidence that they're the person in the image, ask nicely for it to be
> taken down, and hope to hell that the person is reasonable and doesn't play
> the "It's educational and under a free licence, sorry!" card.  This is an
> issue that needs to be addressed because the status quo is entirely
> unsatisfactory.
> Of course, the immediate reaction on Commons to this seems to be
> Wikilawyering as to whether the resolution applies to galleries or not.
>  Given that the BoT's intent is clearly that this should apply to
> everything, everywhere on all Wikimedia projects, this doesn't fill me with
> a great deal of hope that the Commons community as a whole is capable of
> adequately dealing with this.
> Cheers,
> Craig
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list