Roberta,
I'm afraid that I don't see where the "directory" aspect of policy is
related this. If images are presented in the context of an article on radical feminism,
there's no directory aspect, as far as I can tell. There's no list involved. The
images can also be offensive to some people without including nudity, e.g., anti-Church,
anti-clerical images, anti-male graffiti, etc.
And, depending upon the image, keeping it appropriate for all ages is up for debate,
because not everyone decides what's appropriate for their children in exactly the same
way. Say I include a photo of a pro-choice editorial cartoon for example that
does not include nudity or graphic depictions of abortion, is that not age-appropriate?
And for what age? And why not? It's veering into censorship. And Wikipedia is not
censored. I suppose I should make the decision on my own.
I suppose I also could've been clearer by pointing to specific images.
Audrey
________________________________
From: Roberta F. <roberta.flod(a)gmail.com>
To: Audrey Cormier <cormier.home(a)yahoo.ca>ca>; Increasing female participation in
Wikimedia projects <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:30:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Images of radical feminist protests
In case of "shocking" or potentially
disturbing photos/articles
Wikipedia as encyclopedia for all ages.
Roberta
2013/5/19 Audrey Cormier <cormier.home(a)yahoo.ca>
I'm wondering what the thinking is among list members concerning photos depicting more
militant feminist protest activity.
I've been searching for images on Flickr that relate to feminism worldwide, and
selecting some to copy to Commons. I've come across a few that are definitely in the
radical end of the spectrum. The photos themselves range from "could be offensive to
some people" (e.g. topless demonstrators) to "fully intended to be offensive to
some/many people" (e.g. anti-male graffiti, posters dealing with menstruation).
Now, it's one thing to discuss militancy in an article, it's another to see
photos. They have documentary value, and I'm of the mind to go ahead and add them to
the Radical feminism article. Since they were intended to shock, though, I do hesitate to
do it.
Would they serve an article well, or detract? Opinions?
Audrey
(aka OttawaAC)
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap