User:Sharkface217/Some articles are better without pictures
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
|
These pages contain material which is kept because the contents are considered humorous. They are not intended, nor should they be used, for any research or serious use. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Use your judgment before adding a picture to a page that doesn't necessarily need illustrating. |
Photographs bring life to an article. That much is true. For example, articles such as Piss Christ or even Kiss would be useless without images. Viewing the statue that is Piss Christ and looking at the long-tongued members of Kiss are experiences that greatly enrich what one takes away from both articles. However, some articles would probably be better off without images.
What articles would be better off without pictures?
[edit]I first realized the answer to that question when reading the sexuality in older age article. Before really getting into the article, I quickly scrolled down the page and checked for pictures. This was not because I wanted to find pictures, but rather because I didn't want to find them. After finding there were none, I proceeded to read the stomach-churning facts that made up the article. Now, while I might not find sex between senior citizens to be very revolting when I reach that age, for now I would rather not view pictures that might forever be burned into my consciousness.
Conclusion
[edit]Before you take that compromising photo of yourself and your spouse so that it can be uploaded to Wikipedia under a license that releases it to the public domain, stop and think. Yes, you might greatly help such articles like sexuality in older age. But does anybody really need that much information?