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

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Those photos are fine, and are found in reliable sources.

Alright, so we at least found a starting point we can agree on. I'll
say that's something.


>
>
> 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.

I think they serve the purpose. I imagine in many cases, it would be
possible to do it like that, especially in articles on very general
topics.


>
>
>
> 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.

Books are very often image-light, given the publishing costs.
Wikipedia is not a book.


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

In terms of a full article on marriage, to take up a slot for an
image, when we can generally only fit 10 or so images into even a long
article? No, it would not make that cut. Again, photos of weddings,
married couples, etc., in different cultures, would be far more
instructive than a photo of consummation (especially given that
marriage consummation doesn't really look visually any different than
sex any other time). You're trying very hard to set up that straw man,
but it is a straw man.


>
>
> 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.

Wait wait wait. Above, we discussed the war atrocity photos, and you
were perfectly fine with them. Do you not think such photos would
cause people to react with shock, concern, and compassion? They do for
me! But they appropriately illustrate the topic. Difficult subjects
may have difficult images accompanying them, but what would one really
expect to find?

And in this case, driver's education classes, literature on the topic,
and so on, routinely show photos of drunk driving crashes. Driver
safety material often shows photos of crashes. So you can't even use
the "that's not common practice" argument there. If we follow what you
assert to be common practice above, why wouldn't we follow it here?

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.
>

Seems this bunch of incompetent, untrained fools has put together one
of the most astonishing, comprehensive, and widely utilized
educational tools in the history of the world. Maybe it was time for a
little unconventional thinking. Wikipedia was not built by deferring
blindly to "experts," and I wouldn't say it's turned out too badly so
far.

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




-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.