[Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 14.06.2012 19:31, schrieb geni:
> On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard<dgerard at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
> No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
> enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
It is called censorship right at that moment when useful illustrations 
are removed because of their shock value, while arguing with the "the 
priciple of XYZ" from a rather extreme position. Good editorial judgment 
would include such depictions if they further the understanding of a 
topic. But bad editorial judgment tends to exclude useful depictions and 
to include useless/unrelated, shocking or not, depictions.
>> rather than something that can be imposed by filtering.
> True for wikipedia but commons in particular needs some way or another
> to provide more focused search results.
I already made a workable suggestion for Commons, but the interest from 
any side was very low:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence

Some seam not like to give up the idea of filtering (labeling) and 
others seam not to care. Overall we have a proposal that would be 
workable, being to the benefit of all users and would not introduce any 
controversy or additional work, once implemented.
>> (Although the board and staff claim that
>> editorial judgement they disagree with must just be trolling is how
>> "principle of least surprise" becomes "we need a filter system".)
> Perhaps but I wasn't aware that their opinions were considered to be
> of any significance at this point.
>
> Okey they did block [[user:Beta_M]] but the fact that very much came
> out of the blue shows how little consideration they are given these
> days.
>
>
> The fact remains that anyone who actually wants a filter could
> probably put one together in the form of an Adblock plus filter list
> within a few days. So far the only list I'm aware of is one I put
> together to filter out images of Giant isopods.
>
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter 
that there would already services in place that would filter the content 
or images. So far i have seen some very week approaches using the Google 
APIs, but no real filter lists. Judging from your approach to filter out 
Giant isopods, we see that there is no general rule what should be 
filtered. Some dislike X, others Y and the next one likes X and Y but 
not Z. Overall this results in the wish to have as many suitable filters 
as possible, which at the same time results in massive tagging work.