On 13 May 2014 21:08, Wil Sinclair <w...@wllm.com> wrote: > I've never heard "Principle of Least Astonishment" used this way. I've > only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically > user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment > Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community; > is this one of those cases? > > FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like "fuck," but in my experience > it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in. This is grand historic debate :-)
POLA got thrown around a lot in the c. 2011 debates about whether WP should support/enable/allow/contemplate some kind of image filtering - it was used in the Board resolution which more or less kicked the whole thing off. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content The sense here seems to be that you might expect nudity on a medical or sexuality-related page, but you wouldn't expect random nudity in an article about a bridge.* But then, what level of nudity? Click-to-view? How graphic? etc. It's a good principle but relies on individual editorial common sense, which of course is very difficult to scale and very vulnerable to deliberate disruption. We had a few months of yelling, lots of grumbling and accusations of bad faith, and the whole thing eventually ground to a halt in late 2011 with very little actually done. The resolution is still out there, though... Andrew. * today's surprising fact: a particularly odd contributor tried to argue for this, at great length, in ~2005. I forget which article on enwiki it was. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
