Bryan Derksen wrote:
I don't see how putting a photo of someone performing autofellatio onto the autofellatio article is trolling. That's just about the only article I can think of where it would actually fit in.
*Somewhere* we have to draw a line, I think, but we just all disagree on where. For example, many would argue that adding a rotten.com image of a car crash to [[car accident]] is inappropriate, despite it being clearly on topic and arguably informative (an image gives a much different understanding of what flying through a windshield really is like as opposed to a text description). Or, to take everyone's favorite example, we don't have an image of the goatse.cx man on [[shock site]], despite it being eminently on topic there---and arguably this is one place where a picture really is worth a thousand words in terms of explaining "what's this goatse thing and why is it a big deal?"
My personal preference would be to keep most "squickish" images as links. When I'm browsing the encyclopedia, I don't necessarily want to see, without purposely clicking on "show me this image", images of: an anus on [[anus]]; autofellatio on [[autofellatio]]; goatse on [[shock site]]; a clitoris on [[clitoris]]; a car crash on [[car accident]]; a cut-open chest on [[heart surgery]]; and so on. None of those images particularly offend me (no, not even goatse... as a long-time internet denizen it barely even surprises me anymore), but they're eye-catching enough to be distracting from the text.
-Mark