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

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 we should just follow policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_n… and keep 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 _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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