On 04/08/2014, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 4 August 2014 10:49, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly, if/when the Foundation finds out, it should first pass the issue to the OTRS volunteers who handle BLP problems to examine.
Why would that need to be dealt with by OTRS volunteers, and not the community at large?
The Streisand effect and just plain old "oh, be nice" which is much easier to manage in a non-public discussion (albeit on the record). For notable people this is a tricky balance, one of public interest versus intrusion. We are not journalists (exempting Wikinews for a moment) and so I would much rather see a lean towards avoiding intrusion into personal lives wherever reasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
As an OTRS volunteer I am especially sympathetic for subjects of photography that have been accidentally compromised in public places. We are not *always* talking about nudity - two memorable cases were when someone was worried that their image was being used as an illustration of racism, and another for an illustration of homosexuality; both were identifiable in the photographs and neither apparently gave specific permission for their photograph to be freely released and so were surprised to see their face being used on Wikipedia. Even when copyright is fine, and the material has great educational value, our projects need to be sympathetic to the accidental damage or distress that repeating personal data or propagating photographs might have.
Postscript: In the case of Wikinews, this boils down to local policies which reflect best practice for journalists. In general we still avoid intrusion and should take care to set very high standards for ethical treatment of biographical material about living people. That's which writing about historic figures rather than "celebrities" tends to be so much easier. :-)
Fae