There are only a few things, that accumulate faster in our articles than "Trivia"-sections: categories, weblinks, and flag icons come to mind.
But the offender I want to concentrate on (yep, driven by the Muhammad controversy) is the useless or misleading image. As this has become a "customer driven (not-quite-)encyclopedia", the attitude of the majority of our customers, to prefer pictures over textual content will always be a good argument for adding just another image.
So, we have pictures of [[Paul the Apostle]] of which only can be said the the species of portrayed living being is almost surely correct. Or the portraits of the victims of [[Jack the Ripper]] which add nothing to an encyclopedia, only give a strange feeling of the darker parts of a wax museum. My favorite oddity is the "artistic impression", as promoted by NASA, of e.g. [[90377 Sedna]] or a [[Black hole]]. NASA needs funding and everything that gets public attention helps this, so I understand their rationale for using these misleading and pointless pictures, but what is our?
Anyway, and back to the religious part of this. It's obviously OK that there are pictures of Jesus and crosses and saints and whatsnot in many Christianity-related articles, as Christianity did (almost) always rely on these visual impressions. It's just documenting an important aspect of this religion. But Islam just works the other way around. Providing artistic impressions of Muhammad in the Muhammad article itself doesn't serve to actually show him, nor does it serve to show the Islam's picture of Mohammad.
Regards, Peter [[User:Pjacobi]]
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org