Is Wikipedia corrupt?

I am seriously starting to think that it is.
But first, let's define corrupt.

For some reason - OK, for good reasons - many people seem to equate the notion of corruption with greed, with money.

I am using the word here in a more general (but no less pernicious), core sense: as a state of contamination, i.e. removed from a pristine condition.
Perception of such a state often results in indignation on the part of those who haven't (yet) succumbed to the latest fashion in the prevalent mores.

It was precisely this "old fashioned" sentiment what drove a respected friend of mine to report to me that the venerable Wikipedia has been publishing photos and other images that he - my friend - deemed far too graphic to find a place on such an easily accessible site as Wikipedia, with no protective mechanisms to safeguard the visitors from visual contents that might be offensive to them.
In fact, he sent me a link - which I am NOT going to share with you - so he could prove his point.

Did he ever...!
I still regret clicking on it.
You think the offensive images were sex-related?
Think again.

Deep down, in its mediocrity-worshiping bourgeois heart, Wikipedia is far too conservative to allow such uncontentiously contentious subject matter as sex to occupy its very exposed pages, unless the encyclopedic entry in question absolutely demanded it.

No, it was obscenity of a different kind - perhaps the most terrible, most damaging kind: two (two!) photographs - BIG, impossible-to-miss photographs - of the carnage allegedly inflicted by "Jack the Ripper" on one of his alleged victims.

At this point, let me add that the scene captured on said photographs is known to have been extremely traumatic even for the policemen of the time.

Let me tell you, those policemen weren't pampered pansies. They saw A LOT during their years of service in the belly of London.
But none of them - or so they said - had witnessed anything nearly as horrific as that. It is said to have haunted them for the rest of their life, just as they thought it would.

And this is the kind of image that some Wikipedia "editor" deemed appropriate to post within the main article about the victim in question!
They are totally unnecessary, they contribute nothing to the scope or quality of the information; as a matter of fact, they defeat the purpose of the article, as they scare off genuine researchers who come looking for information, not an unexpected horror show.

And the fact that there are not one but TWO of them, betrays the probable true - deeply banal - intention of the "editor": to shock.

This suspicion may be corroborated by the incredible fact that the pictures appear to have been deleted a number of times - isn't that (along with the verbal complaints in the "discussion" section) a very clear message by the users regarding the usefulness of the images? - and yet, the "editor" keeps restoring them!

Now I want you to imagine that Wikipedia had posted the autopsy photo of Marilyn Monroe.

Having had the misfortune of stumbling upon said photo (that was before I upped my Google Image Search settings to "moderate"), I can tell you I found it extremely unpleasant.
I can also tell you that there is no visible blood on it (or maybe a few specks, I am not sure), there is absolutely no gore, nothing that could disturb the eye or the mind - except for the obvious fact that it is... well, an autopsy photo.

But what do you think would happen if Wikipedia posted that photo in its article about Marilyn Monroe?
I dare not imagine it. But I can actually hear the clamour in my mind - before the swift disappearance of the photo, of course (which would probably be a matter of minutes rather than hours, let alone days).

"Outrageous!"
"Why don't they let her rest in peace?!"
"Have they no respect for the poor woman's DIGNITY?!"

I can hear them because I know people - and because something very similar happened when a newspaper tried to publish a photo of Diana Princess of Wales taken while she was lying injured on the back seat of the car, after the fatal crash in Paris.
She wasn't dead, not yet.
And I am told she wasn't disfigured at all.
(The French doctor, Frederic Maillez, said she actually looked "very beautiful".)

But the idea - the perceived insult to the "dignity" of a dying woman - was enough to provoke outrage and, ultimately, prevent the publication of the photo.

And they were right - they are right, all of them.
What I want to know is, how come that poor wretch who lived a dismal life and died a horrific death in the slums of London does not seem to have any "dignity" to speak of?

How come HER right to "rest in peace" (however illusory it may be) is nobody's business?

Do human rights, including the right to "dignity", have an expiration date?

And what about MY dignity as a viewer - as an unsuspecting, well-meaning user who comes in search of information? What about my right to seek information without being assaulted - ambushed - by shocking images that I never sought out? (And once an image is burnt into my retina - and into my mind - it stays there. I may not dwell on it, but it is there, ready to ambush me at any time.)

Maybe the "editor" who originally posted those images did not realise just how offending they were, on all levels.
Fair enough.
(After all, it's not like Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia, with appropriately competent and sensitive editors.)

But what is their excuse for reposting them after the images had been removed, thus clearly rejected by users?
What is the core motive driving them to publish such images?

Because it can't be quality of information.

***

There is an interesting - flawed, but memorable - film called Time After Time(1979). 

One of the main characters is precisely Jack the Ripper.
Having escaped to the future, by means of H.G. Wells' time machine, Jack finds himself in 1979: safe, sound - and every bit the beast he was back in 1889.
So he resumes his activities.
Anticipating the thrill of publicity (some things never change), he buys a newspaper to read about his own exploits...

At this point, let us just say that he is bitterly disappointed.
And this is the conclusion he draws after having read the newspapers of 1979:

"One hundred years ago I was a monster.
Today, I am an amateur."

EDIT (2. I. 2010):
Here's a link to a post by a "disgruntled" Wikipedia ex-editor.