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

[Todd Allen]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>> I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace
>> parents anyway. But it is a constant part of the discussions with various
>> exaggerated examples that can be seen in bold at Jimmys talk page even
>> right at this moment. For example:
>>
>> "Wikipedia helps me teach my children about the world in a safe, clean and
>> trustworthy manner. Free from bias, banter, commercial interests and risky
>> content."[1]
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_law>
>
>
>
> The issue there is that on the one hand, the Foundation's fundraising
> materials advertise Wikipedia as being God's gift for children, especially
> underprivileged children, through official fundraiser "stories" like these*:
>
> "Wikipedia helps me teach my children about the world in a safe, clean and
> trustworthy manner. Free from bias, banter, commercial interests and risky
> content."
>
> "Wikipedia has been a wonderful recourse for my children and me to learn
> new terms, knowledge, and culture background as an immigrant family. It is
> a safe and trustworthy website for children to do their research."
>
> "Thanks to websites like 'Wikipedia', children of all ages can continue
> their endeavor in learning."
>
> "We are a family that live in the interior of Brazil in a very poor state.
> We have opened a learning center and work with local children from nearby
> villages. Wikipedia is INVALUABLE for this work."
>
> "I worked for a non-profit in India and even the poorest children who were
> receiving education there knew about Wikipedia and were familiar with the
> site."
>
> So that's one half of the story. The other half of the story is that the
> community says the exact opposite: Wikipedia is not for children, but for
> adults, and only a moron or a bad parent would let their children go on
> Wikipedia unsupervised. Go figure.
>
> Andreas
>
> * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Only a moron or a bad parent would let their children go -on the
Internet-, unsupervised, Wikipedia or otherwise. Teaching your
children to use the Internet responsibly is no different than teaching
them to drive-at first, you have them watch you, then you let them
start taking the wheel with you watching closely, then as they gain
experience, maybe they can take short drives on quiet roads alone, and
then on from there. Throwing your kids on the Internet without giving
them any idea of what to expect is like handing them the keys when
they've never been on the road before.

My oldest kid is kind of in the intermediate stage right now-she can
use the Net, but I check in reasonably frequently. As she continues to
use it responsibly, the frequency of those checks will drop gradually,
until one day she knows how to properly and safely use it with no
supervision. My youngest is still at the stage where if she wants to
get online, I'm sitting right next to her. My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
check up on her a lot.

But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just like
it's my job to teach them how to drive, not everyone else's to get the
hell off the road before they start to. Why are we figuring this to be
any different? The world isn't always safe for children, and it is the
job of -parents- to keep children away from areas unsuitable for them,
and to alert them to the type of things they might encounter, not the
job of everyone else to make sure the whole earth is covered in safety
plastic and rubber bumpers.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.