Should Wiktionary use images?

Some people think Wiktionary should not use images. Are they right?

Related questions: Are definitions a necessary or vital part of empirical sciences? What is the role of definitions in children vocabulary acquisition?

Arguments for

 * For many words, it is the visual examples of the referents that bind the words to their meaning. Indeed, children do not learn most words from definitions. For some words, images greatly help to get an idea, e.g. bird species names; one can also show an image for, say, being on top of.
 * Since blind people also acquire language, visuals do not seem necessary for word learning.
 * Good point. However, one would have to clarify to what extent blind people effectively learn words for, say, birds.
 * One cannot probably use images to recognize birds on species level anyway; one is much better served by a corresponding encyclopedia entry.
 * Since Merriam-Webster uses images in some of its entries, e.g. dog, it is probably a good idea. That is not conclusive yet suggestive.

Arguments against

 * Dictionaries usually do not use images, e.g. Merriam-Webster online or Duden.
 * That is suggestive but not conclusive. One may choose to do things differently from what tradition dictates if one finds good reason for doing so.
 * While most entries in Merriam-Webster online do not have images, some do, e.g. dog. Thus, even if one follows the model of Merriam-Webster online, one would not exclude images from all entries.
 * For most words, images have no use. For those words where images do have use, the images can be found in the corresponding Wikipedia article or in Commons, one link away from the dictionary entry. By banning images, one gets rid of the regulation problems such as whether to allow erotic images, whether to allow etymology-related images, etc. One also somewhat reduces page loading times.
 * Some online dictionaries do use images here and there, although, granted, this is rare. Some print dictionaries use images a lot.
 * Commons may lack the right category for the word in question.
 * Better have the image directly in the dictionary entry than having to click to other projects and wait for the pages loading.
 * Expanding on the above, images are a visual distraction: they are what catches the eye. But it is verbal definitions that properly provide conceptual information, not images, and ideally, it is them to which the attention should be driven. Images are like ice cream or sweets for a child who should better eat meat, eggs and vegetables.
 * It is questionable that a conceptual dictionary definition for, say, a bird species is a definition proper. Since, the bird is a natural kind and it has many more defining properties/differentia than captured in a dictionary definition. From a logical standpoint, a definition proper would pick the same species across possible worlds. One would think an image does much better job of pointing to the species.
 * A good point. However, one may pick less eye-catching images such as drawings rather than color photographs, to make the images more conceptual, as it were.
 * One can have a section for images collapsed by default. Thus, one has to actively succumb to images by a mouse click to uncollapse the section.
 * The picture dictionary project in the English Wiktionary, e.g. in animal and  color, looks rather disruptive or distractive, taking too much space. Admittedly, that is not about pictures in general to illustrate individual senses but rather a warning about how badly a picture support can turn out.
 * Some users may like that format.
 * Needs and preferences of different users need to be balanced. Taking into account preferences of possibly only a small portion of dictionary users seems like a bad idea.