Would users, of whatever age, be better off seeing that, a professionally-photographed image, or nothing?

I am curious about why the man in the picture is wearing a top hat. Is that what Englishmen wear while masturbating?

.......That looks like a job for David Shankbone.

I've heard in the US they have laws (18 U.S.C. § 2257?) regarding age record keeping of "models" doing sexually explicit acts.

There are plently of porn images already on Wikipedia. Would not Wikipedia have to keep records of the age of the person in such photos?

Not safe for work (or, quite frankly, most places) but most of these are taken by members of the community. Allegedly.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._%28animated%29

I am curious about why the man in the picture is wearing a top hat. Is that what Englishmen wear while masturbating?

Its like anorexic love-child of the Pringles guy and Mr. Money from Monopoly.

Would users, of whatever age, be better off seeing that, a professionally-photographed image, or nothing?

How could you try to delete such a lulzworthy artifact?

How could you try to delete such a lulzworthy artifact?

The creator of that work of art is also responsible for one of the weirdest pieces of trolling I ever saw. OK, which of you is it?

Not safe for work (or, quite frankly, most places) but most of these are taken by members of the community. Allegedly.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._%28animated%29

English: Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use may be deleted.

I don't consider that weird.

This letter is not intended to assuage your worst fears about wikipedia but will, in most cases, confirm them. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: It has been brought to my attention that wikipedia unquestionably gives me the heebie-jeebies. While this is true, if I didn't think wikipedia would empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people, I wouldn't say that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of its neo-shallow reports. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.)

If wikipedia is victorious in its quest to curry favor with the most self-deceiving ochlocrats you'll ever see using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other dastardly nonsense, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. It's not that I have anything against devotees of conspiracy theories in general. It's just that wikipedia parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. When one looks at the increasing influence of lexiphanicism in our culture one sees that wikipedia's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found? The answer should be self-evident so let me just point out that wikipedia's desire to cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos is the chief sign that it's a haughty astrologer. (The second sign is that wikipedia feels obliged to initiate a reign of imperious terror.)

Certain facts are clear. For instance, wikipedia is blinded by greed. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: Wikipedia's plan is to lure the socially inept into its little empire. Wikipedia's understrappers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes breaking down our communities. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this letter short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that wikipedia favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion.

...If wikipedia is victorious in its quest to curry favor with the most self-deceiving ochlocrats you'll ever see using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other dastardly nonsense, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. It's not that I have anything against devotees of conspiracy theories in general. It's just that wikipedia parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. When one looks at the increasing influence of lexiphanicism in our culture one sees that wikipedia's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found?...

Wikipedia favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion.

And you're saying this text is, or is not computer-generated?

If it is, that's one smart computer. Though I would probably replace "lexiphanicism" with something like "textual echolalia," if only to have it make a bit more sense.