Bryan Derksen wrote:
I don't see how putting a photo of someone
performing autofellatio
onto the autofellatio article is trolling. That's just about the only
article I can think of where it would actually fit in.
*Somewhere* we have to draw a line, I think, but we just all disagree on
where. For example, many would argue that adding a
rotten.com image of
a car crash to [[car accident]] is inappropriate, despite it being
clearly on topic and arguably informative (an image gives a much
different understanding of what flying through a windshield really is
like as opposed to a text description). Or, to take everyone's favorite
example, we don't have an image of the goatse.cx man on [[shock site]],
despite it being eminently on topic there---and arguably this is one
place where a picture really is worth a thousand words in terms of
explaining "what's this goatse thing and why is it a big deal?"
My personal preference would be to keep most "squickish" images as
links. When I'm browsing the encyclopedia, I don't necessarily want to
see, without purposely clicking on "show me this image", images of: an
anus on [[anus]]; autofellatio on [[autofellatio]]; goatse on [[shock
site]]; a clitoris on [[clitoris]]; a car crash on [[car accident]]; a
cut-open chest on [[heart surgery]]; and so on. None of those images
particularly offend me (no, not even goatse... as a long-time internet
denizen it barely even surprises me anymore), but they're eye-catching
enough to be distracting from the text.
-Mark