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

[Thomas Morton]

>
>
>>  It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors
> that aren't interested in such a feature.


Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this with specifics.


> If we tag images inside the project itself then we impose our judgment
> onto it, while ignoring or separating it from the context it is used in.


And yet you allow that we use editorial judgement in articles. This is no
different, it gives a further tool for editorial decisions to be made.



> The first proposal (referendum) mentioned various tagging
> options/categories that would have to be maintained by the community,
> despite existing and huge backlogs.


 A reasonable argument; but almost everything adds to our backlog anyway.

Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite different view
> points and which accepts different view points (main difference between
> Flickr and Co).


This is an argument for an opt-in filter.


> The result will be huge amount of discussions about whether to tag an
> image or not.


Not if well designed. And at the moment we have big discussions about
whether to include images or not.


> This leads me to the simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort,
> especially if the filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for
> children, while everyone (including children) can disable it at any time.
>

"Think of the children" is not really an argument I ascribe to. And not
really one other proponents of the filter, by my observation, ascribe to
either.

It mostly seems to be brought up by opponents to try and invalidate
arguments.


> Separate projects that only focus on one task (providing a whitelisted
> view, an automatically updated subset of Wikipedia) would not be a burden
> for the community or at least for everyone not interested in or against
> filtering. Additionally it could define it's own strict rules and could
> even hide images and articles entirely depending on it's goal.
>

Please note we define community in significantly different ways. My
"community" includes a minority, us, who edit and maintain the project. And
also the vast majority who merely read and use the project.

Our goal as maintainers for this main community should be:
* Maximise the ability of individuals to access content by...
* Minimising the road blocks (social, political, etc.) to accessing content

A significant portion of the filter discussion is predicated on our
internal prejudices and POV - basically navel gazing - with a wide
rejection of the idea that a multi-cultural society exists.

A non-WMF filtering project would not be useful to our community due to the
chicken/egg seeding problem.

Tom