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