ps. for my proposal see;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Proposal_3_-_Model_ages.2C_releases.2C_and_personality_rights
pps. the general reception for that particular proposal was that I'm a bit
of a crazy person.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, private musings wrote:
>
Here are some pointers to commons discussions;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
- the commons policy on nudity, more focused on whether or not content is
useful than things like permissions.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
- mentions
Last post on this thread.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings wrote:
> There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
> permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many
> which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the imag
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> This is under understanding the whole issue is not covered by BLP policy
> (I assume if a vagina is shown but the face is not this is not a BLP
> issue).
I would feel better if we got model rights whenever using someone's
body to ill
ok - well to try and take sj's sage advice, and move this conversation
forward, I'll focus on one smaller aspect of the bigger issue.
Commons currently has quite a few photographs of people in various states of
undress on beaches. The permission of the subject's for this material, for
example, an
> 2009/4/21 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
>
>> I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are
>> too
>> bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who
>> wants
>> to get to the template can click on "show" link. Same with the pictures:
>> as one solution, one hid
2009/4/21 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
> I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are too
> bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who wants
> to get to the template can click on "show" link. Same with the pictures:
> as one solution, one hides the pictur
2009/4/21 :
> PM's mail included a bit on an attempt at an appeal to authority by way of
> Jimbo.
Indeed - precisely because this has been turned down (including being
voted down by a huge margin a few years ago) repeatedly on en:wp. It's
a perennial proposal.
- d.
_
> Hoi,
> When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them.
I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are too
bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who wants
to get to the template can click on "show" link. Same with the pictures:
The issue of "safe for work" browsing is a distraction, not a core problem.
I don't think we often figure explicit images prominently on mainspace
articles with unrelated or tenuously connected subjects.
More importantly, no one has argued that [[Herpes]] should be text-only.
It's tangents like th
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein wrote:
> From: Samuel Klein
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual
> content
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 6:26 PM
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:18
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them. It is a
>> cop out to continue and say that it is *others *that can decide that they
>> do
>> not want to be
Hoi,
The argument is about "not safe for work", it is about not showing these
pictures because you tag them as such. Consequently medical conditions,
particularly those that have a sexual dimension will be affected.
Explain to me why my point of view is not valid AND explain why these images
are n
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them. It is a
> cop out to continue and say that it is *others *that can decide that they
> do
> not want to be informed, that they are willing that other people are at
Hoi,
When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them. It is a
cop out to continue and say that it is *others *that can decide that they do
not want to be informed, that they are willing that other people are at risk
because essential images are not readily available. It is a cop
> Someone I know did not recognise a venereal disease and as a consequence
> she
> became barren. It is because of this that I asked a Dutch organisation for
> illustrations of how venereal diseases visually manifest themselves. The
> images I got show sexual organs, show ulcers and other things th
Hoi,
We create nothing because other people will have to write it.
When you look at many crucifixes, you will see human suffering in a really
stark way. This is deeply troubling to some people and others will say that
it depicts the suffering of Jezus on our behalf. Both have a conflicting
point o
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:18 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
> we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
> that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.o
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Marcus Buck wrote:
> In my opinion the best system would be like this:
> We create a software measure to apply tags to specific content. ...
While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
we can create a simple solution by renaming all image
Yaroslav M. Blanter hett schreven:
> May be I misunderstand smth but as far as nudity is concerned (to return
> to the original topic), obviously standards are very much different in
> Denmark and Iran. Does it make sense to make a global standard and impose
> it on Danish and Farsi wikipedias at t
>>> I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set
>>> one standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for
>>> all cultures? These things are not absolute values and each community
>>> needs to work out what standards are most pragmatic for it's members.
>
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/20 Birgitte SB :
>
>> I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one
>> standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all
>> cultures? These things are not absolute values and each comm
> --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> From: Samuel Klein
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual
>> content
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 3:39 AM
2009/4/20 Birgitte SB :
> I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one
> standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all
> cultures? These things are not absolute values and each community needs to
> work out what standards are most pragmatic
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein wrote:
> From: Samuel Klein
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual
> content
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 3:39 AM
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009
Hi,
As has been mentioned elsewhere in comments on your writings, you have
good ideas which aren't directly related to nudity or sexual content.
1) respect human subjects of photos and other media
1a) get explicit model consent, both for models who are 'many meters
away' and for significant mode
heh - as I say in the essay (and the noticeboard) - oh the irony!
My hands are indeed filthy - although I never went blind ;-) - and yes, we
still need to talk about this stuff.
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
> How about 'unclean hands'.
>
> In the recent en.wp discussion that you mention, you added an im
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM, private musings wrote:
> On a tangential note, I've also been looking at various governmental, and
> NGO 'codes of conduct', some of which recommend things like accurate record
> keeping on model information, ensuring users confirm that they wish to view
> materia
Hello all,
Those of you foolish enough to watchlist the english wikipedia's admin.s
noticeboard, or Jimmy's talk page, might have noticed a broo ha ha this last
weekend concerning nude pictures on userpages. Basically, a user has an
image of a shaven vagina on their userpage with the caption 'No m
29 matches
Mail list logo
