Erik Moeller wrote:
Let's be honest here: Someone who really wanted to
know about
autofellatio -- out of the desire to know about the subject, not out
of the desire to discuss its merits as we do -- probably would like to
see that photo, even if it's not the best possible one. So I think, if
the other criteria were fulfilled, which does not appear to be the
case, that it should be available until a generally more popular
replacement can be found.
I'd disagree with that. There's plenty of things I want to know about
but have no real interest in seeing explicit pictures of. I've had
occasion to read Wikipedia articles on surgical procedures, for example,
but if each of them were liberally sprinkled with highly graphic
photographs of actual surgeries, I might find reading them a bit
difficult and look elsewhere for that information.
The current situation with articles like [[clitoris]] is similar. I'm
not /offended/ per se by clitorises or open-heart surgery, but I don't
generally want to see photographs of either of them when I'm reading,
unless I've actually clicked on a "click here to see photographs of
[...]" link. At the moment, that makes Wikipedia a poor source of
information, and one I increasingly do not use.
-Mark