The Women Of WordCamp 2006 (Or “The Author Of This Blog Went To WordCamp And All He Bought Back Were Pictures Of Chicks”)
One of things that surprised me were how many women showed up to WordCamp.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
chartreuse 
August 7, 2006 at 12:36 am
Hmm. Where are the photo credits?
August 7, 2006 at 12:40 am
Never mind, I didn’t realize some of the photos were clickable, because I’m a dork. I’m going to assume that the ones that are not were yours.
August 7, 2006 at 12:51 am
Elea, you should really be nicer to me.
August 7, 2006 at 12:56 am
Holy crap! There were like, 20 women there! It was flooded! Wait…dude, there were only 20 women there. That’s not very many last I checked.
August 7, 2006 at 2:01 am
Lauren, calm down. I am not going to tell your girlfriend anything.
August 7, 2006 at 3:31 am
Oh yea, you were the one talking to the microformats girl..
August 7, 2006 at 6:44 am
Ha, I know Glenda from the 2nd picture. We did an impromptu poetry reading in an Albany Dunkin Donuts in 1994.
August 7, 2006 at 8:24 am
[…] Chartreuse scopes the women of WordCamp. […]
August 7, 2006 at 9:18 am
Here’s me dancing for Elea. Capture it on camera quick before I’m done. Ah nevermind.
Char, was wondering when you were going to say something about WordCamp. I gotta go with Lauren here – the venue was sorely lacking in chicks. But that’s okay! There were enough even if it was a 20:1 ratio. 🙂
Peace!
August 7, 2006 at 9:36 am
Aaron,
That’s what gentlemen sometimes miss. It’s not quantity but quality. I talked to a lot of really smart girls. Smart enough to stay the fuck away from me! 🙂
August 7, 2006 at 11:43 am
That’s still a better ratio than a lot of technology-related conferences.
I’m not sure whether it would beat defcon and it’s groupie contingent but hey.
August 7, 2006 at 11:59 am
That pic of Bonny was a great one btw.
August 7, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Yet, and even though I told Char not to take a photo of me, lo and behold here is one. Thanks, or, thanks no thanks. I didn’t want a photo of me as a “chick at wordcamp”- unless, of course, I’m goign to get some $$ that you earn on this site via ads… and did you ASK any of us if we wanted to be on the site? Methinks not.
August 7, 2006 at 4:27 pm
celebrities dont have to be asked if they’re in a public place
i hear bloggers are the new celebrities so….
August 7, 2006 at 4:29 pm
First of all anna:
There are no ads on my site.
And if you told me not to take your picture, I didn’t. But obviously you let someone take your picture (cuz th ones I didn’t take I got from Flickr).
And I didn’t call you a chick on the post. I called you a woman.
Please stop listening to my ex-wives and girlfriends.
I’m a very PC guy. 🙂
August 7, 2006 at 7:50 pm
That’s right. I took those pictures of Anna. And last I checked, those pictures are not licensed for others to use. I usually don’t care though, because most people out there are cool and post very clear attribution statements.
August 7, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Looking at flickr, Lauren, you have an All Rights Reserved license posted, so your pics shouldn’t be getting reposted anywhere….
Matty
August 7, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Jeez…the picture is down.
I hope this event hasn’t scared you too much.
August 7, 2006 at 10:36 pm
[…] The Women of WordCamp 2006 (Or “The Author Of This Blog Went To WordCamp And All He Brought Back Were Pictures of Chicks […]
August 7, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Ooh, look a pic of me! How handy that my nametag is readable in the pic…
Does anyone know who the blonde knitter was? I talked to her for a bit before information architecture, but I never got a name. Next time, I’m so doing business cards.
August 7, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Matt: Yeah, but I am totally cool with those other few pictures of WordCamp folks being posted out on those other blogs. I guess I could do a CC license for those pics so that those posts are in good standings.
Char: I don’t really care if the picture of Anna is posted here or not. My point is that there are still other pics that I own and that are being displayed here on the site. Even if I do add a CC license for them, you really should be adding attributions. And you should do that for the other photographer’s work that you are posting here, regardless of their licensing. It is just playing nice.
August 7, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Attributing pictures is a discussion that goes on at this site at least twice a month.
Here’s the deal.
I attribute pictures by having a link back to where they came from. I think that is the best way to do it. Unless the picture is one I took myself. Then there is no link.
I tried mmmaaannnyyy different ways in the life of this blog, but that one seems to attribute the author, is unobtrusive to the ‘flow’ of my site and get the least complaints.
I believe a picture is no different than any other media on the net. It’s a link.
It still gets some complaints. But not many.
But if it really bothers you just let me know and I just won’t use your pictures. No harm, no foul.
August 7, 2006 at 11:52 pm
I guess my point is that Flickr has a CC license search capability for a reason.. use it 😉
My wife publishes some great photos and uses Flickr – she’s damn picky about who posts them (and I’m not on that list). 😉
She’d kick your arse and send our cat out after you if you posted one of her pics.
Matt
August 7, 2006 at 11:53 pm
[…] Get a load of the petty little argument happening at the bottom of this post. […]
August 7, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Oh, and that’s one pussy you wouldn’t want to mess with..
~Matt
August 8, 2006 at 12:07 am
This discussion probably deserves a post of it’s own.
I really believe a link is enough credit.
August 8, 2006 at 12:53 am
The link means that you are complying with Flickr’s terms of use when you are using a picture hosted on their site. However, even if I licensed these pictures (which I have not), you would still have to attribute them in the mannor I specify, not you. In general (and if you read the fine print), this means adding a name and and URI. All of this is explained on the Flickr and Creative Commons web sites.
August 8, 2006 at 1:04 am
If you were a regular reader of this blog you would know my opinion about the law. If I don’t agree with it I weigh the consequences and do what I think is right. Not exactly conducive to peace but I think some of the major issues in this age of institutional collapse (like copyright laws) are going to be changed by how people decide to use the content.
I’ve written my views on copyright laws before. But if someone doesn’t want me to use their content in the way that I do, I take it down. How can I be any fairer than that?
August 8, 2006 at 2:03 am
Ok, I read the two posts about your views on copyright laws. They didn’t exactly present a compelling reason why you don’t want to respect the copyrights of your fellow bloggers and photographers because you disagree with large companies changing copyright laws to suit their purposes. As a writer and blogger and a Flickr user, I highly value the protection that copyrights give me. I find laws to be a pretty good idea, all in all.
And how can you be fairer? If someone doesn’t know that you are using his or her photographs or other intelectual property, how is that fair? I found this because of the wordcamp tag, not because of the Flickr links.
Thanks to Matt for being such an articulate voice of reason in this discussion.
So am I going to ask you to take down these pictures? No. Why? Because comments is not the appropriate forum to do that (contacting Yahoo legal is). Instead, I opted for conversation because I think that is more valuable than these few pictures.
August 8, 2006 at 2:26 am
Lauren, I love a healthy debate and I agree that this conversation is important.
Let’s be real for a second.
When you post something on the internet it’s open for anyone to use. Does a guy sitting in Germany have any reason to follow the US interpretation of copyright law?
The laws, imho, are a complete waste of time.
Some guy who has no direct income from his blog decides to post a picture you had publiclly posted else where. How is that any different than providing a text link to the picture? I doubt you would be complaining at all if I just used a text link. But the truth is that there is no difference between the two.
People post youtube clips anywhere. Profit/non-profit sites. No attribution to the author at all. It’s the price you pay for a Youtube post. I think the price you pay for making a picture public is the chance that it will be public.
August 8, 2006 at 3:31 am
[…] As usual, all the real action on this blog is in the comments. Like my post yesterday about the Women of WordCamp and the discussion about copyrights which ensued. […]
August 8, 2006 at 5:39 am
No, it’s not.
It’s still covered by copyright law – like it or not.
You still have to respect the terms of service of the person or organization that holds the copyright – like it or not.
There’s a simple solution here – Flickr is full of creative commons licensed pictures. Use those and comply with those terms of service (many of which require attribution by the way).. and that may mean more than just linking back to the original picture.
Matt
August 8, 2006 at 11:46 am
Respect. That’s what it boils down to. You can disagree with law all you want, but you should never argue the wishes of someone who provides you with your content. That’s just straight disrespect. Fuck the laws and corps, but don’t fuck the person’s beliefs in how their work should be handled.
August 8, 2006 at 12:08 pm
If you don’t like the way I use your public work on the net I take it down.
In an era where rules are blurred that seems like respect to me.
August 8, 2006 at 12:29 pm
You know Prince you are really making some dumb as rock decisions. Take the girls pics down dude. This is so rock stupid. As an owner of a site that trys to do journalism you are stealing images. WTF.
I’m losing more and more respect for you everyday.
August 8, 2006 at 12:31 pm
See I have no issue stealing corporate images they arent people. But if its people let it be and respect the damn girl. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an ass.
Cuz I know I steal images fairly often. I just hate how you treat and talk down to the damn girl in the fucking comments like you can virutally rewrite internet law as you go.
Who are you Gigaom?
August 8, 2006 at 12:32 pm
David,
The picture was taken down a long time ago. Right after the subject asked.
Your opinion of me is none of my business, but get your facts straight.
August 8, 2006 at 12:38 pm
And I thought Louren and I was having a public conversation about a very important issue. I don’t think I put anyone down.
I have the same right to be wrong like anyone else.
But I think I’m on the right side of this. History will decide.
August 8, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I knew you took the pics down man that’s not the issue. The really big issue is you and your rock dumb decision to rewrite law like you are an activist judge or something.
Your condescending attitude is typical of men who think they can do this kind of shit. It’s fairly offensive to me an avid supporter of yours for a long time.
Over the last few weeks all that has changed and its all very public. Your constant arrogance towards shit like this is just idiocy.
People should always have the right to own their own shit and get credit for it. You should also credit the other pics appropriately btw.
And the pics arent down unless its just my web cache.
August 8, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I see one pic disappear but not others.
August 8, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Disagreement is not condensending.
I took down the picture I was asked to.
August 8, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Time to Skype.
August 8, 2006 at 1:46 pm
You didn’t add any attibution statements, which is specifically requested by Laughing Squid, by the way. From the description of one of the photos you stole:
“This photo is licensed under a Creative Commons license. If you use this photo, please list the photo credit as “Scott Beale (Laughing Squid)” and link the credit to laughingsquid.com. ”
If you want to be respectful of the other bloggers out there, just add our names to the photos with links to our blogs. It is the nice thing to do. I have provided an example on my site.
August 8, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Good stuff Lauren way to stick to your guns. I agree its chiefly a respect issue.
August 8, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Krug – you have overstayed your welcome at this site if you have not been told so already.
ake your grandstanding somewhere ekse please. It is shameless at this point.
Char is not in this to climb on other people’s back, sdo stop doing it off his.
It is obviois to everybody that has now followed this comment train but obvioulsy not to you.
August 8, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I like women, especially WP or blogging women. They rock.
August 8, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Lindzon whatever. Not climbing on his back or granstanding just making a point about attribution.
Yeah my idiocy is very obvious but my point is still relevant.
Oooh so mature of an investment banker in a suit to take sides. I’m a cheerio ass. But sometimes make some decent points.
Anyhow. stuff to do in the real world laters.
August 8, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Not whatever. You are an ass. A punk. Lauren made the point as did ELEA. You have not added anything.
Over 20 percent of the comments in this chain are yours.
A little overdone to make a point, especially since you made none.
From what I have read over the months here, your ethical hat is itself on backwards so your arguments hold no weight.
August 8, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Lindzon,
Namecalling is not neccesary. An investment banker who talks about ethics is like a lawyer who talks about oh nevermind. I know a few good lawyers.
So what if 20% of the comments are mine. It may be overdone but the issue is just about respect. Char hasn’t remedied the issue and if youd like to call out my ethical violations and my moral integrity that’s perfectly fine. Bring it.
At this point in the universe all i really have to say is if I took up 20% of the conversation that just means im more passionate about it. I’ve invested a lot into proper copyright bs and also am a huge advocate of Creative Commons and have supported it financially in small ways over the years.
I see copyright as a dead issue and CC moving in to replace it. More than that I try to respect the little guy.
I love how Char’s band of brigands light it up the last while everytime I make a comment. This place has gotten worse than Digg. Largely because of the new Chartreuse Koolaid Kup.
August 8, 2006 at 3:58 pm
again – stop coming. I am sure Digg will be happy to have you back
dont you have a blog that no one reads to get passionate about.
August 8, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Site security
This site has attracted all kind of whiners and attention getters. Shame.
August 8, 2006 at 4:20 pm
haha Dude that’s the funniest shit I ever read. Lindzon tells me to go back to Digg.
Cmon dude what did I do to piss you off so bad you jumped into me like I bit you in the ass.
I swear your drinking the koolaid.
August 8, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I don’t think Howard has added much to this conversation, if you ask me. Seems pretty “obviois” to me. So I don’t know where he gets off attacking others about that.
August 8, 2006 at 6:15 pm
[…] So I posted some pictures of the WordCamp women and ended up in a discusion which turned ugly. […]
August 8, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Nice stuff. Leaves a black mark on WordCamp. It’s a little irritating that everyone can’t be civilized to each other – both sides.
August 8, 2006 at 7:28 pm
God, it’s one thing to disagree over copyright.
It’s another thing for this to devolve into a namecalling event – on both sides of the issue.
Matt
August 8, 2006 at 7:58 pm
You were fanning the flames too, Matt.
August 8, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Only my wife 😉 I just pointed out that my cat is vicious 😉 I didn’t call anyone any names.
Matty
August 8, 2006 at 9:10 pm
No. You didn’t call anyone names. Lauren got huffy. Char got huffy back. Then you jumped in and got people riled up. Then some bizarre tour de force between Krug and Howard.
Really… this entry was meant in good natured fun, I’m sure. Personally, I’m glad there were women there and I hoped for more equal representation in the future. And not because they look damn good, either. But acknowledging they look damn food and having a flame war ensue is a bit touchy.
August 8, 2006 at 9:44 pm
[…] It all started going downhill in the comments of Prince’s post where in his post he took a handful of pics from the camp. Some folks were not happy and then it all began. […]
August 8, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Chartreuse: this what Krug is doing is an amateur primative technique of blogocombat called Thread Jacking.
I am an artist. I take photos, audio, and video of anything and anyone I want. I do not ask permission of a person to post their photo, they should be thrilled and in awe that I would stoop so low as to display their hideously butt ugly heads on the web.
I video tape drug busts, cops, gangsters, mental patients, bar clientele who may be cheating on their wives, bloggers, anything I want and the photos are the property of the Universe who made them.
August 8, 2006 at 10:15 pm
I threaten to discombobulate any further cat fights and dog brawls on this thread.
Step away from your computer. Wait while the authorities figure out the fastest route to your station. Comply with all their sadistic rules and barbaric wishes.
This picking on a Photo Artist shan’t go any further.
August 9, 2006 at 12:37 am
It was indeed a good discussion, until some kids ruined it into an ugly brawl.
Anyways, I wish the healthy discussion should continue.
A direct link has been one of the best way to attribute since the Internet started. Though I do also agree an artist’s, or writers wishes have to be catered to, if he wants something more than a link attribution for his/her work.
In coming days, I won`t be surprised if more and more people will settle for a text link or image link, and will find it enough to get the right attribution to their work.
August 9, 2006 at 2:28 am
Bahahahaha, someone just sent this spat to me on Valleywag. Obviously not worth posting, but I can’t figure out which was more fun: reading Chartreuse’s batshit loco interpretation of copyright ethics, or saying all of David Krug’s lines in the voice of a 13-year-old World of Warcraft player.
August 9, 2006 at 7:21 am
The 13 you WoW player. That *must* have been more fun.
August 9, 2006 at 11:28 am
Hey Mr Angry, I’m not even getting into this discussion. I liked the comment on blogocombat and thread jacking by vaspers. The rest, no comment.
August 9, 2006 at 4:13 pm
hi friends take a look at my site I think you might like it
http://www.globaleflyer.com
thank you
August 9, 2006 at 8:46 pm
sharo1 comment above is comment spammy and makes no sense at all.
range, yoour buzz agent paid enthusiast VTG support check is in the mail.
I am still cracking up LMAO about Anna not knowing that there are no ads on this site. Talk about lame blogocombat from a she blogger who should know better. Oh ha ha ha. Anna is very pretty though, so I better not be too mean to her. I bet she hates me though. I deserve it.
Mr. Angry can kick all your candy butts.
August 10, 2006 at 3:52 pm
[…] A título de curiosidade dêem uma vista de olhos para a acesa discussão a acontecer nos comentários deste post do Chartreuse Beta. Aqui trata-se da atribuição dos autores de imagens disponíveis no Flickr. […]
August 11, 2006 at 8:00 pm
[…] Wonder where today’s title comes from? There was some controversy created on Chartreuse after a post that some people had some objections too. My favorite part of all this was Jessica Doyle’s suggestion of settling the thing in the wikicourt. I agreed with her on that. This was Char’s response to all this. […]
August 13, 2006 at 7:51 pm
[…] Not that my little corner of the blogosphere provides any great shakes. After, a discussion over the misconceptions and misinterpretations of a religion, and the resulting ramifications, weigh more heavily than someone crying foul over a stupid picture. I just didn’t want any further hate from the original post being brought in here. I bring enough noise, as it is. […]
August 15, 2006 at 1:10 am
[…] After WordCamp, I, like all of the other bloggers there, blogged about the event and surfed Technorati and Flickr to read and comment about it. It all started innocently enough. I found a blog post that had some of my Flickr pictures on it, so I made a comment. Next thing I knew, I had started a bit of a discussion about copyrights. Some people were rude and illogical, but some folks, like Matt and Chester, backed up my position more eloquently than I ever could. Also, this is what triggered my Men of WordCamp post, in case anyone was wondering where that came from. […]
August 16, 2006 at 4:51 pm
[…] Geeky t-shirts: WordCamp’s WordPress t-shirt, was worth all the drama because the quality of the t-shirt is grade-A soft, and a nice off-black. The Linux t-shirt was poached from a co-worker. I do like Linux, have done some linux stuff, but honestly, far too geeky for me. Shirt gets points for cute penguin- translates well with the non-geek crowd. Negative points for being very, very large. […]
August 30, 2006 at 9:35 am
[…] Concludiamo questa lunga carrellata di informazioni con le inmancabili foto, da quelle delle donne a quelle degli uomini, sino ad arrivare alle vere e proprie raccolte come quelle che potete trovare su Flickr o su Laughingsquid. […]
August 31, 2006 at 3:05 am
[…] The women of WordCamp 2006 […]
October 2, 2006 at 2:22 am
[…] Concludiamo questa lunga carrellata di informazioni con le inmancabili foto, da quelle delle donne a quelle degli uomini, sino ad arrivare alle vere e proprie raccolte come quelle che potete trovare su Flickr o su Laughingsquid. […]
January 6, 2007 at 2:51 pm
[…] WordCamp geekcamp of wordpress users… yes, there was a boy involved, though we became mired in scandal. One of my favorite feedback-comments from Lauren is “iMurder should have its own site. […]
January 15, 2009 at 11:22 pm
[…] Did any of you notice the “discussion” going on over at Chartreuse’s blog. […]