Thomas Larsen wrote:
Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally informative.
Is seeing the image really critical? I personally don't think so. For one, I haven't looked at the image myself, and have no intention of doing so, as I noted in my post. Isn't it possible to just describe the picture textually, without actually showing it? More importantly, is showing the image actually scholarly? My main argument against inclusion is that it isn't.
—Thomas Larsen
How can you conclude that without ever take a glimps of the image?
This sort of argumentation is very strange to me. It is like: I don't need to take a glimps of any astronomical observations or physical theories, I just THINK the earth is the middlepoint of the universe.
Ting