Perhaps it makes sense to follow up with a bit of personal background: I'm operating a scientific archive called "The Origins of Peace and Violence". On that site, we have an article that documents child abuse in the United States:
http://www.violence.de/prescott/hustler/article.html
The article is illustrated with police photographs showing children who have been beaten or mutilated. I find it very important to have these photographs, because people have very strange ideas about what child abuse is (and in general, anything sexual receives a lot more attention than the everyday incidents of murder, abuse and neglect).
The reason I mention this is that I've received quite a few complaints about this website, including one from the same institution that contacted ogrish.com, the German agency for the protection of minors. They actually sent me a several page analysis why this page would have to be placed behind a child protection (adult check) system.
I responded in detail to this complaint, and altered the page (originally there was a separate page that included only the pictures), and the complaint was withdrawn. To me this is an example how a complex subject like violence against children can be handled in a responsible manner. I see this in sharp contrast to sites whose reason for existence seems to be the mere fascination with brutality.
In my opinion, Wikipedia should be very careful when linking to such sites -- it reflects poorly on us, because the information is contextualized in a manner that is considered inappropriate by most people. We are an encyclopedia and it is part of our editorial responsibility to contextualize information neutrally and appropriately.