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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I see a child, but i don't see sexual abuse. So i can't agree with you that
> it is an instance for child sexual abuse.

As I said, it is disputed.

> I should have written this question: Can you point me to examples of any of
> the previously mentioned abuses on Commons or Wikipedia that have no
> justification to be there?

I have no idea what the justification is for any particular image.  My
point was that Wikipedia contains plenty of images which were "taken
without the subject's genuine consent".

I am not the one who said that Wikipedia may not contain images which
were "taken without the subject's genuine consent".  That was brought
up by Todd Allen, and my purpose in showing that the images were in
Wikipedia was to show that this is *not* a valid criterion.

I do indeed think that the proper criterion, at least for the adult
version of Wikipedia, is whether or not the image is justified.