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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
in Wikipedia-speak...use the word 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.

Certainly.  And when this happens, sometimes we write about it, and
then someone says "so fix it", and we say "the next day someone will
fix it back".

You seem to be making the assumption that Wikipedia's notion of
"consensus" is the proper way to write an encyclopedia.  I by no means
am accepting that assumption.

>> 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.

So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?

(*) Notwithstanding Virgin Killer, and perhaps a few other examples, anyway.

> 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.

What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?

You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
in another.