I believe that the photographs are, quite simply, unnecessary. I do not state this merely because I am partial to the view of some corpulent fellow's exhibitionism, but, they are simply excessive. Moreover, every image seems to benefit someone in some way, thus turning Wikipedia into a market. The one female image is of an amateur pornographic model (advertising herself), the other female of a contemporary 'artist's' work (advertising his work), and the male photograph of some perverse exhibitionist who, most certainly, adores polluting my screen with his phallus. For reasons such as this I deem the English wikipedia inordinately horrid. The sketches suffice  this is unnecessary. The article was sufficient prior to this plague of pornography. But, 'Oh! Oh!', quoth the prepubescent wikipedian, ''Tis for the better of the encyclopedia!' How? The sketch shows a photograph of a man with a dick in his hand, as does the sketch. What the hell is the difference?