On 2/5/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't agree with that demand. I can imagine
our article on
Hardcore pornography being improved by the inclusion of images of it.
They would need to actually add to the encyclopaedic content and not
just be decorative, which might be a difficult barrier to overcome (I
think you can adequately describe most sexual acts in words, so the
picture would be redundant - which probably falls under "not notable"
given an appropriate definition of notability), but I certainly don't
object to such images on principle.
There would be no inherent problem with including hardcore pornography
in an article about [[Hardcore pornography]]; Any reader genuinely
offended by hardcore pornography would probably not choose to read an
article thusly titled (cf. [[Muhammed cartoons]] or whatever the
complete bloody title is), and possibly such a reader would also be
offended by the text.
I'm not sure how "notability" is a meaningful consideration for
pornographic images. Obviously for a mere visual example, we would
prefer a free image (and the result would be amateur porn nine times
out of ten, which would serve its purpose well enough). In other
cases, the image itself (or the film from which it was excerpted)
might, for its notoriety, be the subject of the article or section,
and a fair use rationale could probably be claimed.
On any sliding scale of "notability" within the wild world of porn,
these would be two polar extremes, whereas the middle 98% would be of
markedly lesser value to the project (though nothing would be
completely useless).
—C.W.