Tony Sidaway wrote:
Nicholas Knight said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Nicholas Knight said:
Can you give me a single example of a case where a PHOTOGRAPH of a sexual act is meaningfully more useful than a line drawing?
I can. A photograph of autofellatio convincingly demonstrates that this extraordinary act is achievable by some men. A line drawing can only give an artist's impress of how perhaps it *might* be done, should it be possible.
If Wikipedia has to rely on photographs to say something is possible, a critical credibility problem exists.
It doesn't have to rely on them, but they're very effective for this purpose. I've got blind colleagues who manage very well without being able to see a thing, but this doesn't mean that sight isn't also useful.
And even IF you're correct, that does not in any way require an inlined image.
I agree. It does not. But if it's a useful illustration, why not?
I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.