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

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 14.06.2012 22:40, schrieb Risker:
> On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard<dgerard at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray<andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>> Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
>>> relying on the community's own judgement in all edge cases; I'm not
>>> sure it's the best one, but I'm not sure leaving it out is any better.
>>
>> The present usage (to mean "you disagree with our editorial judgement
>> therefore you must be a juvenile troll") is significantly worse.
>>
>>
> I'm not entirely certain that you've got the "usage" case correct, David.
> An example would be that one should not be surprised/astonished to see an
> image including nudity on the article [[World Naked Gardening Day]], but
> the same image would be surprising on the article [[Gardening]].
>
> The Commons parallel would be that an image depicting nude gardening would
> be appropriately categorized as [[Cat:Nude gardening]], but would be poorly
> categorized as [[Cat:Gardening]].  One expects to see a human and gardening
> but not nudity in the latter, and humans, gardening, *and* nudity in the
> former.
>
> Now, in fairness, we all know that trolling with images has been a regular
> occurrence on many projects for years, much of it very obviously trolling,
> but edge cases can be more difficult to determine.  Thus, the more neutral
> principle of least astonishment ("would an average reader be surprised to
> see this image on this article?/in this category?") comes into play. I'd
> suggest that the principle of least astonishment is an effort to assume
> good faith.
>
> Risker
You gave a nice description how it should be applied in the right way. 
But the usual interpretation i found in any recent discussions was 
something like this:

"We don't need to show naked people inside the article [[World Naked 
Gardening Day]]. It would be an offense against any reader that doesn't 
want to see naked people. It also might it be dangerous to read this 
article in public. ..."

Together with the usual pointy strong-wording it becomes something like 
this:

"Wikipedia dishes out porn. We need an image filter. Protect the 
children..."