Tony Sidaway wrote:
Delirium said:
Having no images would
make it a crappy encyclopedia. Having so many unpleasant images
sprinkled through it that every article on medical procedures or
disasters or accidents or anything else potentially related is
completely unreadable also would make it a crappy encyclopedia.
Yes, we must get it right. But there are no intrinsically unpleasant
images, just ones that are useful in an article and ones that are not.
I've already explained why I think autofellatio is an excellent case of an
article that needs a photographic illustration. We should be able to
display that illustration without apologising, and it really would help if
people would learn how to operate their web browsers.
_I KNOW HOW TO OPERATE MY WEB BROWSER!_ I shouldn't have to make five
mouse clicks (or two keystrokes and three mouse clicks at most
efficient) to avoid seeing this crap in a general-purpose encyclopedia.
You want to inline it in an article in a medical encyclopedia? That's
fine, go ahead, but _this is not a medical encyclopedia_.