I think perhaps Roberta's point would be that there needs to be an
encyclopedic reason for adding a particular image to a specific article.
So, for example, an image of a protest that occurred in Naples would fit
with "Feminism in Italy", but probably not as an illustration of Naples.
As a rule of thumb, images used in articles should be of subjects or
activities that are discussed in the article.
On 19 May 2013 13:08, Audrey Cormier <cormier.home(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
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.
*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
we should just follow policy
and keep Wikipedia as encyclopedia for all ages.
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?
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap mailing list