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

[Todd Allen]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> 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?

Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
slim, and quite realistically, if it were to happen, I would much
rather it occur in the context of a dispassionate article giving a
frank but rather dry account of what it means, than a porn site with
flashing banners and descriptions designed to shock, titillate, etc.
Her main interest is in dinosaurs, horses, and veterinary medicine,
though-not exactly controversial sections of the project.
>
>> 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?
>

My ten year old kid isn't stupid enough to do that. If yours is, you
failed long before they got in the driver's seat. So no, I wouldn't
particularly feel responsible-if your kid is that immature and prone
to rash behavior, you shouldn't have let them out of your sight. If
mine did that, I would absolutely feel fully responsible for it-ten
years is plenty of time that she should know that's an extremely
dangerous thing to do.

>> 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.
>

And like I said, and have seen with my own kids, the vast majority of
it is. I would wager that a far higher percentage of Wikipedia is
"child-safe" than the percentage of the Internet at large. I have no
problem recommending that my kids go read a Wikipedia article on
something they're curious about, and then go look at the sources cited
in it for more information.

> 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.

If someone wants to make a Kidopedia, with everything nuked out that
they consider child-unfriendly, more power to them. They're welcome to
host that wherever they like. They could even work at having the
project in language aimed more at children, and perhaps making a point
to cite children's education sources in articles in addition to
newspapers, science journals, etc. This is free content, and someone's
absolutely welcome to go and do that.

But that's not -this- project, its aim is to be comprehensive. The two
are mutually exclusive, because the real world is not always pleasant
or child-safe.

> 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.

If you hire a babysitter, sure, it becomes their job-they accepted it
as such. The same if you have family, etc., who help with your
children, as well as teachers and the like who voluntarily assume
responsibility for your child while in their care. That's fine. But
you shouldn't be able to force total strangers to accept the
responsibility of supervising your children because you can't be
bothered to do it, and you certainly shouldn't be able to insist that
public places be childproofed.

Now if someone wants to take on that Kidopedia project, hey-all they
need is a DB dump, a webhost, and the time to nuke out whatever they
don't want. Given our categorization system, the time part's probably
not even as onerous as it sounds at first. That's the whole point of
free content-anyone here yowling that there should be such a thing can
go make that thing, any day they want! If no one wants to do it,
despite the fact that they don't need anyone's consent at all to get
started on it right this minute, guess it's not that big a deal after
all, is it? But that's certainly not what I want to see -this- project
changed into.

And no, I don't think we should do so. I think we should facilitate
the creation of a comprehensive educational resource. What parts of
that resource parents will allow their children to look at is up to
the parents, right squarely where that decision belongs. Adults, on
the other hand, should have the option of looking up any topic they
like, and finding it covered frankly and fully, as should any parents
who perhaps have children with questions on sex and sexuality, and
might like to have a resource that discusses such things in a neutral,
educational tone, but still covers the topic frankly and without
treating it as disgusting or shameful. That's the project I think we
should choose to continue building.

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