On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a
wide spectrum of opinion on such matters. We have seen this in the past, with long discussions about contentious cases like the goatse image, or the Katzouras photos. That is unlikely to ever change.
But we do also subscribe to the principle of least astonishment. If the
average reader finds our image choices odd, or unexpectedly and needlessly offensive, then we alienate a large part of our target audience, and may indeed only attract an unnecessarily limited demographic as contributors.
You completely and utterly misrepresent what the principle of least astonishment is supposed to address. It is a matter of where people should be directed, when there are confliting disambiguation issues. It doesn't refer to content issues in the slightest. Period. We don't say you can read an article about X and not see pictures of X. That is ridiculous.
The principle of least astonishment is mentioned thrice in the board resolution on controversial content:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
"We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain"
Signpost coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-06/News_an...
Andreas