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

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Tom Morris <tom at tommorris.org> wrote:
> On Friday, 15 June 2012 at 13:21, David Gerard wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Market failures do sometimes exist.
>
> Also, because as far as I can tell, the proposed filter isn't a NetNanny type thing, it's a "I don't want to see pictures of boobies" AdBlock type thing. Which is a different thing entirely.
>
> Of course, there's some confusion here. Larry Sanger, for instance, is very very angry about how Wikipedia hasn't implemented a "filter", even though he seems slightly confused as to the difference between an AdBlock type filter and a NetNanny type filter.
>
> Preventing people who don't want to see pictures of naked people from seeing pictures of naked people is a lot easier a task than preventing people who DO want to see pictures of naked people from doing so.

Preventing, sure.  But I think what you see as Sanger being confused
about the difference between an AdBlock type filter and a NetNanny
type filter is actually his desire for something which isn't either -
a filter which parents can set up to prevent their children from
inadvertently stumbling upon age-inappropriate materials.

As a parent I must say that there is certainly demand for this sort of
thing.  And I can think of many reasons why the market hasn't tackled
this one.  The copyleft license is near, if not at, the top of that
list.  Liability and other legal considerations would also be high up
on the list.