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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>> No software is perfect.  No solution is perfect.  But don't let the
>>> perfect be the enemy of the good.
>>
>> You're assuming that a "good" exists for this function. This
>> assumption is entirely unsubstantiated.
>
> YouTube's age restricted content policy is "good".  That is to say,
> it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than Wikipedia's policies.  My
> kids are much more likely to run across hard core pornography while
> clicking around on Wikipedia than clicking around on YouTube.
> Personally I'd prefer they rely more on whitelisting than on
> blacklisting - but what they do is already a *lot* better than
> Wikipedia.

World Book Encyclopedia was "good".  I spent many days reading through
the entries, performing the dead-tree equivalent of clicking on the
links as I went from topic to topic.  My parents didn't sit looking
over my shoulder.  It was an encyclopedia I could read on my own.

You want an explanation for why the market hasn't created a WBE
equivalent based on Wikipedia (*)?  The top answer is copyleft.  (As
suggested by Andrew Gray, technical/legal problems are another
problem, but I think these issues pale in comparison to copyleft.)

(*) Actually I'm not sure the market hasn't created this.  There
certainly have been various projects which have attempted to create
it.  I'm not sure if any have succeeded, and my kids are not yet at
the reading level where I need to spend much time looking for it.