Perhaps it's about prejudices we have when we interpret the content we read. I get a dislike for "decorational" images like a photo of a random bridge over a r

Perhaps it's about prejudices we have when we interpret the content we read. I get a dislike for "decorational" images like a photo of a random bridge over a river (c) AStockPhotoSite when talking about building a new bridge in the town: that ain't content. An illustration of the bridge to be, an architectural depiction, would be considered content. Wikipedia seldom has images of the former type: they are all there to expand the content being represented. So, I've read the article according to my biases, and I do not see such a strong opinion against images: to me it reads not as if they might, but rather that they do enable them on Wikipedia.