On 13 May 2014 21:08, Wil Sinclair <wllm(a)wllm.com> wrote:
I've never heard "Principle of Least
Astonishment" used this way. I've
only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically
user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree:
Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community;
is this one of those cases?
FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like "fuck," but in my experience
it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in.
This is grand historic
POLA got thrown around a lot in the c. 2011 debates about whether WP
should support/enable/allow/contemplate some kind of image filtering -
it was used in the Board resolution which more or less kicked the
whole thing off.
The sense here seems to be that you might expect nudity on a medical
or sexuality-related page, but you wouldn't expect random nudity in an
article about a bridge.* But then, what level of nudity?
Click-to-view? How graphic? etc. It's a good principle but relies on
individual editorial common sense, which of course is very difficult
to scale and very vulnerable to deliberate disruption.
We had a few months of yelling, lots of grumbling and accusations of
bad faith, and the whole thing eventually ground to a halt in late
2011 with very little actually done. The resolution is still out
* today's surprising fact: a particularly odd contributor tried to
argue for this, at great length, in ~2005. I forget which article on
enwiki it was.
- Andrew Gray