On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a > wide spectrum of opinion on such matters. We have seen this in the past, > with long discussions about contentious cases like the goatse image, or the > Katzouras photos. That is unlikely to ever change. > > > > But we do also subscribe to the principle of least astonishment. If the > average reader finds our image choices odd, or unexpectedly and needlessly > offensive, then we alienate a large part of our target audience, and may > indeed only attract an unnecessarily limited demographic as contributors. > > > > You completely and utterly misrepresent what the principle of least > astonishment is supposed to address. It is a matter of where people > should be directed, when there are confliting disambiguation issues. > It doesn't refer to content issues in the slightest. Period. We don't > say you can read an article about X and not see pictures of X. That is > ridiculous. > The principle of least astonishment is mentioned thrice in the board resolution on controversial content: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content "We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain" Signpost coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-06/News_and_notes#Board_resolutions_on_controversial_content_and_images_of_identifiable_people Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
