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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
>> in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.
>
> That's the way the project works. You or I can love it, or hate it, or
> rail against it, but that's the reality.

Sometimes I, and sometimes others, are going to write about the
results of it, okay?

>> So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?
>
> Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
> repeatedly, end of discussion.

Well, moreover, it's illegal almost everywhere.  So yeah, putting it
on Wikipedia wouldn't be pragmatic.

But I'm just wondering if there's a principled reason for the ban in
addition to the pragmatic one.

> But even in a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) world where child
> porn was legal, a privacy issue exists there that does not exist in
> adult nude or sexual images, since children are incapable of giving
> real consent to participation in such a thing due to lack of maturity,
> whereas adults can and often do give informed consent to participation
> in photographed or filmed nudity or sexuality. I think that, too,
> would allow us to draw a distinction between sexual images of children
> and those of adults, since those of a child would be -by definition-
> taken without the subject's genuine consent.

Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.

>> What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?
>
> I can -conceive- of a case where that would be appropriate

So, commons is fine, I guess.

> In every case I know
> of, though, a candidate penis photo would be just as irrelevant as a
> macro photo of a few hairs on the candidate's head.

Convent pornography, cock and ball torture, and hogtie bondage,
though.  These are things that are relevant.

Or is it okay if, instead of putting the penis picture on [[Candidate
Whatever]], we put it in [[Candidate Whatever's Penis]]?

>> 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.
>
> That goes back up to the above. When disagreement happens, we discuss
> it and come to consensus, if we can.

And what is "consensus"?

> If no consensus can be reached
> for an exception in a particular circumstance, standing policy (in
> this case, NOTCENSORED) serves as a fallback/baseline, and we go with
> that.

So, things are included (under NOTCENSORED), unless there is consensus
to not include it?

> Did you have another suggestion for a better process?

Yes, but first let me get a complete description of the current
process (starting with answers to the above questions).