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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?

> 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?

Well, surely it is different.  If you leave your keys in your car with
the car running, and my ten year old hops in and takes it for a
joyride, you don't think you're partially responsible for what
happens?

> 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.

The question, really, is whether or not Wikipedia (or, at least, a
cordoned off section of Wikipedia) wants to be one of those safe
places.

Personally, all I'm saying is that it would be nice if it did.  Some
others are saying that, if Wikipedia chooses not to be a place which
is safe for children, then Wikipedia shouldn't be marketed to children
- that the fundraisers shouldn't advertise Wikipedia as being a
project which benefits children.  And I think they have a good point.

And actually, I have to nit-pick and say that it isn't *only* my job
and "not anyone else's".  It's also the job of others who have
*chosen* to help me with it.  I think that's an important point,
because the vast majority of us are *not* saying that Wikipedia *has
to* choose to facilitate the creation of an educational resource for
children.  We're saying you *should* choose to do so.