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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
> market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
> actually a demand for one?
>
> (IIRC the various netnannies for workplaces don't filter Wikipedia, or
> do so only by keyword, i.e. [[Scunthorpe problem]]-susceptible,
> methods.)
>


UK schools of course filter, but both the bestiality video and everything
that comes up in a multimedia search for "male human" was accessible on
computers in my son's school. Much to their surprise. The one thing their
filter did catch was the masturbation videos category page in Commons.


I ask because of recent statements by board members that the filter is
> alive and well, and not at all dead.



Which board members other than Jimbo have said that?