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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:

> That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
> that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
> victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
> Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
> articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.



Those photos are fine, and are found in reliable sources.



> > 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.
>
> It currently does. In this case, they're paintings rather than photos,
> but they certainly and graphically show the subject matter at hand.
>


They do not. They do not even show a disrobed male. They are a far cry from
the alternative we're discussing – and good job too.



>  An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
> > people killing themselves.
>
> For such a broad topic, I think we might want more general
> illustrations. But if we really did have such an image, of appropriate
> license and high quality, I could see considering it.



I know you could. :) Again, unprecedented in educational sources, and for
good reason. Try finding a publisher who will let you edit a book on
suicide for them with that editorial approach.



>  An article on marriage would show a video of a
> > marriage's consummation.
>
> No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially
> relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures
> would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be
> briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to
> be an illustrated section.



The consummation of a marriage is tangentially relevant? *Tangentially?*



>  An article on fatal car accidents would show a
> > video of a fatal car crash one.
>
> [[Vehicle accident]] currently includes photos of the aftermath of
> several car crashes, including a couple that look likely to have been
> fatal. If we had appropriately licensed video of a vehicle accident
> occurring, why on earth wouldn't we use it there?
>


A number of reasons, one of them reader psychology. A normal human being
would react with shock, concern and compassion for the people whose deaths
they just witnessed, and would probably be put out of the mood to read the
article. Websites put together by competent educators don't feature such
videos. I realise that what educational sources put together by qualified
experts do is irrelevant to the average unqualified Wikipedian.



>  An article on Russian roulette would show
> > someone playing it. And so forth.
>
> Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high
> likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But
> let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article
> is about?
>


Sigh. I think this is roughly where we stopped two years ago. :)



> > This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
> > competence for that matter.
>
> Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think
> anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate. I think we
> can discuss this without questioning one another's motives or calling
> people incompetent.