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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

>
> Well, first of all, why?
>
> Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
> Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
> [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
> there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
> it's probably just a matter of time.



Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive). He and I
have discussed this at length before, together with Jimbo, but I don't
think either of us has been able to change the other's mind. :)

Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored, it
should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the article
is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would
show a video of rape. An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
people killing themselves. An article on marriage would show a video of a
marriage's consummation. An article on fatal car accidents would show a
video of a fatal car crash one. An article on Russian roulette would show
someone playing it. And so forth.

This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
competence for that matter.