Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:OLPC XO-1 and children

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:OLPC XO-1 and children[edit]

In May 2011 the WMF board of trustees passed http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people. The resolution states:

Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently.

Inline with the resolution, the Commons community has strengthened the Commons:IDENT, and we state that all photos which are taken in a private place require both consent to take a photograph, and consent for that photograph to be published.

These photos are taken in an Indian school (a private place), and there is no evidence that each of the parents of the children in these photographs consented to the photographs being taken and published under a free licence.

To ensure consistent application of the WMF resolution as written, these images need to be deleted. It should be noted that the WMF has used one of these images in its 2010-2011 Annual Report (File:Khairat OLPC teacher - retouch for WMF annual report 2010-11 (RGB).jpg), which was published AFTER the resolution was passed, and it would appear that they have not taken their own resolution into account, so I make a personal call for the WMF to recall copies of this annual report and destroy them, for it would not look good for the WMF to be passing resolutions and then blatantly ignoring them at the same time.

Also, I am adding:

russavia (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Selectively nominating images uploaded by WMF employees to make a point about a WMF resolution. Classic russavia. --Conti|✉ 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • These images have been irksome for some time, and it's not the first time that these images have been mentioned by myself. But now's a good a time as any to get rid of troublesome images from the project, given that some quarters expect rigid application of WMF resolutions without question. Don't blame me for being willing to enforce the WMF resolution rigidly as written. russavia (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If you would be willing to enforce the WMF resolution rigidly, you would have deleted the Pricasso video and portrait by now, or at least supported their deletion. Instead, you fight tooth and nail to keep it, while "enforcing the WMF resolution rigidly" somewhere else. --Conti|✉ 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment "Selectively nominating images uploaded by WMF employees to make a point about a WMF resolution. Classic russavia." - I want to remind you that result of discussion shouldn't depend on some user actions or our feelings about that user. That's why I take this comment as unneeded. I think that you know very well that such statements are offtopic, but they could change result by manipulating other people opinions. It's like "that great and smart admin nominated these photos. What should we do" and "that jerk again is going stupid, so what we gonna do?". The nomination stays the same, but people could change their mind because these statements are pointing arguments non relevant to the topic of discussion and causing feelings about nominator, not nominated photos. Even if he's trying to make his point (and probably he want to do it), we shouldn't care about it and look just at the rules and the law. If photos are bad, they should be deleted even if it would be nominated by ubertroll or somebody who would want to see Commons and WMF burn. 89.70.193.134 00:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I am also adding the two annual report files to this DR, as they contain this image. The files would need to be cleaned of this image, or deleted, due to the COM:IDENT issues noted in the DR opening. russavia (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Indeed, when taking photographs or videos of children, one should be sure to get consent from them and from their parents or guardians. In this case, the photographer from Khairat did get and doublecheck consent from the teacher and the guardians of each student, explaining that they would be available under a free license for the entire Web to use. Some of those photos were also turned into wall-posters or included in videos; their inclusion on Commons was not the first global publication of them. --SJ+ 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The WMF board resolution only asks for "an affirmation from the uploader of the media" that consent was obtained. As OLPC is the initial publisher of these images, which were used as part of field reports such as this one, the statement above from Sj (a director of OLPC) satisfies that, and I think this DR can be closed. I see that the OLPC reports state that "The students' names are fictitious"; it might be useful to also say that all photos were obtained with permission from the guardian. The same applies here; we should add a template to the photos where acceptable evidence of consent has been provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The word of SJ is good enough for me. --Conti|✉ 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Although I think keeping this photo is the only option -- because of the discussion here, and not because of anything that pertained before it -- I am very glad to have this issue brought up publicly and discussed. The Wikimedia Foundation and OLPC are two organizations that care deeply about doing these kind of things the right way, even to the point of publishing guidelines for how other people and organizations should behave. Because of that, it is especially important that these organizations go about things in the right way. In this case, and others like it going forward, the file should have had a clear assertion of the permission of the subjects at the time it was uploaded, not merely in response to a deletion request. WMF and OLPC will always have friends in the Commons community, so they need not fear that images like this will be deleted without notification and an opportunity to correct mistakes. This is not as true for organizations or people who do not closely watch deletion requests on Commons, or have friends and associates in the Wikimedia community. To the greatest degree possible, WMF and OLPC should avoid relying on this special relationship with the Wikimedia community, and simply offer up an exemplary approach from the very beginning. But yes, in spite of all this, SJ's comments above are more than sufficient for a  Keep decision. -Pete F (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And one other thing -- in order to bring these images into clear compliance with Commons policy, each one should have a banner that clearly asserts what SJ said. For the benefit of potential reusers, it would be ideal if that banner could be placed there by someone highly qualified to do so, by virtue of his or her personal connection -- for instance the photographer (who personally solicited the consent), or a member of the OLPC board (who received professional assurances from the photographer). It is technically possible for the closing administrator to make the assertion, linking to this discussion; but for the reuser, that will establish a pretty long and convoluted chain of "I assert this because so-and-so asserted that so-and-so asserted that so-and-so took the photo and solicited the appropriate consent." Keeping it simple for our reusers is an important aspect of what we do here. -Pete F (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep
  • File:WMF AR11 SHIP 28pp 15dec11 300dpi.pdf
  • File:WMF AR11 SHIP spreads 15dec11 72dpi.pdf

The cover girl The "Gypsy Girl" mosaic fragment (Zeugma Mosaic Museum) in WMF annual report passed away hundreds of years ago. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using DRs to confirm consent[edit]

All photos taken from the OLPC wiki now have a statement of consent. Yes, please update the consent policies so that all future photos of children require a statement of consent by the uploader. However, please do not DR and remove the [hundred] thousand existing Commons photos that include children but have no such express consent. --SJ+ 22:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sj, as a WMF board member, you are well aware of this WMF resolution passed in may 2011. We already have updated Commons:IDENT#The_right_of_privacy inline with the WMF board resolution. File:Khairat teacher Banner.jpg was uploaded in December 2011, and should have included this evidence of consent at that time by the uploader; unless that is WMF staff are not being educated by the foundation on it's own resolutions and policies that exist. To this end, files will continue to be taken to DR as they have always been; it really is the responsibility of uploaders to ensure that files are on Commons in accordance with Commons policies. russavia (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SJ, can you clarify? I don't think anybody's about to take on nominating all such pictures for deletion, but it does seem to me that deletion review is the most efficient tool available for complying with the WMF resolution referenced above. Several examples of images I have nominated for deletion. In most cases, I think they have had good outcomes (i.e., clarity of consent, leading to deletion in some cases, but not in others):
Note: while none of these pictures contain nudity, the second might be a trigger depending on your perspective on bondage and sexuality. -Pete F (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My main motivation in those and other deletion requests has been to encourage deliberation around how the WMF resolution on identifiable people should impact files currently on Commons. In many, maybe even most, cases involving an identifiable person, there is work to be done: contacting the photographer or subject, or otherwise making a determination about consent. Do you think DR is an appropriate way to move toward making a determination of consent, or not? Do you think those were legitimate nominations? -Pete F (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peteforsyth, DRs are never great ways to clean up large backlogs, because of the timeframe imposed and the aggressive focus on 'deletion', when the intended outcome is actually some other form of cleanup. (often including cleanup beyond what is required to 'avoid deletion'.) The original uploader or photographer is regularly unavailable on the timeframe of a DR to contribute to the discussion.
DRs may be efficient for individual items, but not for thousands at a time. And there are thousands of images of identifiable people that need confirmation of subject consent.
When dealing with backlogs of this magnitude, a common approach is first to fix it for newly uploaded files, and then to work through past files in batches.
The upload form and process does not currently offer a way to indicate consent. This needs to change.
Commons:IDENT is relatively weak here: it does not currently require that the uploader positively indicate the subject's consent to publish, nor does it state that the lack of explicit consent is grounds for deletion. (It just hints many times that a positive indication would be useful; and hints that "published without consent" might be grounds for deletion.)
I could see policy shifting to say that, from now on, images of living people uploaded without indication of consent by the primary subjects may be deleted, without the active intervention and complaint of the subject. This would be a healthy change.
But dealing with the backlog will take longer. If this is handled similar to the way some other backlogs were: images with identifiable people can be catted as such (many already are), those with children with their own cat; then uploaders of those files contacted to update the image metadata with subject consent, linking them to the appropriate template. After a reasonable period of time, those that still haven't added consent could be catted as 'no-consent', and replaced with consentful images where possible, wherever they are in use.
After this I could imagine you nominating unused images for deletion if necessary; but before then it only seems appropriate in exceptional cases where you have specific concern about harm to the subject. --SJ+ 08:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To your specific examples:
Karen Stollznow - the subject was asking for deletion. A clear case for a DR, appropriate of you to repost it and focus on the relevant problem.
Sauna (455500368).jpg - this didn't have to be rushed into a DR timeframe; you could have contacted the photographer and waited for feedback.
Black and White Striped Bondage.jpg - confirming consent was important. but by contacting the photographer and then ignoring his request, you may have simply insulted him.
Michael Paraire.tif - this was in use; the DR (instead of discussion on fr:wp) was not appropriate imo and offended the uploader, who only noticed it after (apparently) the deletion removed it from the subject's article
Lo'renzo Hill-White.jpg - the image was in use; a DR (instead of discussion with the uploader) was not appropriate imo.

@SJ, thank you for the detailed reply. There are some surprises in there for me - I think I have misunderstood some things about the way you, and perhaps other members of the Wikimedia Foundation board, have been regarding these issues. (I should say that, while I stand by my nominations and comments, I don’t want to make this discussion about me; I will follow up on that on your user talk page.) I am feeling hopeful that we can find some ways to move in a positive direction, so I hope you’ll bear with me through some details. I think there are two (related) common issues in the discussion around these issues, that I’d like to avoid: (1) extensive discussion of a "problem" without clearly stating what the problem is, and (2) finger-pointing and blame.

  1. The problem, as I see it: We too rarely defend individuals' personality rights, especially in contrast to the diligence with which we tend to defend the rights of those with intellectual property rights (like copyright). I would like Commons and Wikimedia to present a framework in which individuals feel they have reasonable options with regard to their personality rights.
  2. I will point out some ways in which WMF has inadvertently caused harm in this arena. I am very confident this is not through any ill intent, and bring it up for one reason only: I think that by developing a shared understanding of the dynamics, we might improve our ability to make things better. Although I think it's necessary to talk about causation a bit, it's not my goal to assign blame. (To the extent there is blame, I arguably own a piece of it, since I worked on the communications around the Upload Wizard as a WMF employee, and failed to anticipate these issues myself.)

In reply to your comment, there are two things I’d like to point out:

First, I think your statement above is inaccurate: (that COM:IDENT "…does not currently require that the uploader positively indicate the subject's consent to publish, nor does it state that the lack of explicit consent is grounds for deletion."). I say this based on the May 2011 Board Resolution ("…Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline … with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media…), text from COM:IDENT at that time: ("there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy,") and text from the current version: ("The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons.") (All emphasis is mine.)

I'm simply pointing out that "must satisfy themselves" is vastly weaker and less enforceable than "must assert". The latter we can ask for, and any Commonsist can later observe whether or not the assertion was made. Since we don't currently ask for positive confirmation / assertion of this satisfaction, if I find an identifiable photo with no such assertion, I don't know what to do: should I assume the best and move on? Ping the uploader for more detail? Flag the image for slow cleanup and eventual (if not cleaned up) deletion? The latter is what we do now to ensure (c) cleanliness: even a good-looking image that you might assume the uploader had rights to, if uploaded with an inadequate license, will eventually be deleted.

Second, you mention the Upload Wizard. I agree, this is a significant tool, which helps uploaders establish appropriate expectations. It's worth noting that the Wizard was moved out of beta in the same month as the Wikimedia resolution, but that even though personality rights were an area of timely concern, it it asked nothing whatsoever of the uploader about personality rights. And it has not been modified in the 2+ intervening years to do so. The Wizard was created by the WMF with substantial input from the Wikimedia community. But I am curious: does Wikimedia have a plan for how to shift the Wizard's behavior in order to support personality rights more effectively? Please note, I'm not saying it necessarily needs to be changed this moment; but if and when there is sufficient consensus around the significance of personality rights, do we know how to go about updating the Wizard accordingly?

I don't know how the UW is updated, and started a thread on the Village Pump about this before you left this comment. It is important for the community to be able to update and tweak the central tool that all projects use for posting media of any kind. --SJ+ 19:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the WMF has some unique tools at its disposal to help calm the dynamics around these issues, and help us move toward a more collegial and productive dynamic that balances various interests. The WMF can help set the tone through the language it uses; and it has a significant ability to influence the software tools that guide the behavior of both new and experienced contributors. Can we find some ways to put those capabilities to good use here? A few suggestions to consider:

  • WMF could decisively disavow the phrase "Commons is broken," uttered in the past by WMF Board and staff members, which has gained some currency in many community members' commentary about Commons. I believe this statement, often accompanied by language about "rogue admins," is contrary to the principles of Assume Good Faith and Civility. I don’t think it's true – Commons serves many millions of files to many Wikimedia projects and beyond, vastly increasing the humanity's ability to share knowledge. There are problems, to be sure, but "broken" is a term that seems to imply that the negatives outweigh the positives.
    I hear you, however please note that these phrases and arguments have been made by non-Commonsists about Commons (and non-Wikipedians about Wikipedia, and Wikipedians about Wikipedia, &c.) for years. If you truly mean to follow your desire not to point fingers, please don't claim that this is something 'caused by Board and staff members' only later 'gaining currency in community commentary': that would not be correct.
    Commons is one of the gems of the free knowledge movement; and has the highest ratio of mindblowingly great work to active editors of any project (ok, wikidata and wikisource may recently be catching up here :) If anything, a core problem here is that we need better tools, and better way to recruit new contributors, to keep up with steadily geometric growth.
  • Update the Upload Wizard so that it asks questions relevant to personality rights, in addition to those relevant to copyright
  • Update policies and processes around bots and API use that upload large quantities of media: currently there is a great deal of attention to copyright in their design, but no attention to personality rights
  • Update the "No permission" sidebar item to clarify whether it means "no permission from the copyright holder" or "no permission from the subject"
    Absolutely on all of the above. I'm not clear on where each of these three updates should happen, but we should help speed them along.

Anyway -- what do you think of moving the last few comments over to the Village Pump and seeking out more perspectives from Wikimedians? -Pete F (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved over. Please direct further discussion here. --SJ+ 19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: No consensus to delete. Wider community discusison seems to be taking place here FASTILY 08:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:OLPC_XO-1_and_children&oldid=123986768"