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

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>>>
>>> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>>
>> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
>> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>
> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
> probability to be very high.

Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus. That,
too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.


>> Rather, many of us believe that it
>> would be irresponsible to implement censorship on an uncensored,
>> comprehensive educational project.
>>
>>>> I have no
>>>> problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
>>>> anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
>>>> involving kids
>>>
>>> Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
>>> most of them are banned, though.
>>
>> Uh...wow. One would hope so. I don't believe that's very common,
>> though. Certainly no one I've heard arguing against censorship is in
>> favor of that.
>
> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
> is it not?
>

I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
very settled and tested law, unlike 2257. That's more like forbidding
copyvios--copyright law, while complex, is fairly stable and well
tested. In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
"Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.

> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



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