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_.