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.
Risker/Anne On 19 May 2013 13:08, Audrey Cormier <cormier.h...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > 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.f...@gmail.com> > *To:* Audrey Cormier <cormier.h...@yahoo.ca>; Increasing female > participation in Wikimedia projects <gendergap@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_not_a_directory > > and keep Wikipedia as encyclopedia for all ages. > > Roberta > > > 2013/5/19 Audrey Cormier <cormier.h...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
