[Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Pending Revisions conveys that publication is deferred, but not for what reason. Based on only the name it leaves a new editor guessing: maybe there is a server delay and the matter will resolve itself in next twenty minutes? Double Check or Revision Review tells clearly there is human intervention needed for the next step. Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in connotations than Double Check. Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions. compare This article is in Pending Revisions. or Pending Revisions applies to this article and This article is in Revision Review. or Revision Review applies to this article. the latter sounds more natural to me. There is only so much one can convey in two words without further explanation. So a new editor will not have a clue from the name what the review process entails. At least it is clear it is a process, and human intervention is key. Erik Zachte ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 24 May 2010, at 07:57, Erik Zachte wrote: Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in connotations than Double Check. Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions. The downside is that 'Review' could be linked to an editorial review, and hence people might expect to get feedback on their revision rather than a simple 'yes/no'. I'd also personally link the name more to paid reviewing than volunteer checking. Combining the two, and removing the potential bad bits (i.e. double and review) how about Checked Revisions? Mike Peel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Indeed revision and review makes the impression that much more is done than actually is. (Revision = not only a check, but also alterations, it sounds to me.) I am afraid that is the problem with pretty much of all the expressions that have been put in forum. In German Wikipedia, our word gesichtet is a little bit strange. Sichten is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness. Actually, the subject we should talk about is not an article or a revision, but the version that has been changed by an edit. Kind regards Ziko 2010/5/24 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: On 24 May 2010, at 07:57, Erik Zachte wrote: Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in connotations than Double Check. Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions. The downside is that 'Review' could be linked to an editorial review, and hence people might expect to get feedback on their revision rather than a simple 'yes/no'. I'd also personally link the name more to paid reviewing than volunteer checking. Combining the two, and removing the potential bad bits (i.e. double and review) how about Checked Revisions? Mike Peel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Aye I personally think edit is much simpler for people then revision which I think will confuse more people, especially English learners/2nd language (COI notice: Simple English Wikipedia). When I made the argument on the discussion page most people were against it because they felt people would see edit as meaning every little change they did (so there were lots of edits in each revision) but I still think that most would consider an edit==revision. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: Indeed revision and review makes the impression that much more is done than actually is. (Revision = not only a check, but also alterations, it sounds to me.) I am afraid that is the problem with pretty much of all the expressions that have been put in forum. In German Wikipedia, our word gesichtet is a little bit strange. Sichten is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness. Actually, the subject we should talk about is not an article or a revision, but the version that has been changed by an edit. Kind regards Ziko 2010/5/24 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: On 24 May 2010, at 07:57, Erik Zachte wrote: Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in connotations than Double Check. Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions. The downside is that 'Review' could be linked to an editorial review, and hence people might expect to get feedback on their revision rather than a simple 'yes/no'. I'd also personally link the name more to paid reviewing than volunteer checking. Combining the two, and removing the potential bad bits (i.e. double and review) how about Checked Revisions? Mike Peel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: In German Wikipedia, our word gesichtet is a little bit strange. Sichten is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness. That's funny. Internally, especially in technical discussions, sighted gets used a fair bit. All this time I'd been assuming that, however weird sighted sounded in English, it must be perfectly good German. For non-native speakers, sighted is rarely used in English. The main uses I can think of are to describe a person who isn't blind (For the hike we paired a sighted person with each blind one), for spotting rare animals, or for an archaic nautical flavor (Cap'n! The bosun's mate has sighted the pirate ship from the fo'csle!). As they say, there's sometimes a quality in a good translation that you just can't get in the original. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/23/2010 07:56 PM, Alex wrote: I think that fits in nicely with James Alexander's view: we can and should assume that most editors have already checked their work. Not against the minutiae of our rules, but against their own intent, and their understanding of what constitutes an improvement to Wikipedia. Given that, I think double-check fits in fine, both in a very literal sense and in the colloquial one. I ask people to double-check my work all the time, with the implied first check always being my own. We can assume most, but we cannot assume all. It is the ones that don't that we're especially concerned about. So, the revisions that get double checked are mostly the ones that don't actually need it. The intentionally bad edits are only getting a single check. Sorry if I was unclear. I was speaking about the naming issue. I think it's ok if our name for this generally assumes the happy case. The essence of a wiki, both notionally and practically, is the assumption that people are generally doing something good. Protection, which focuses on the trouble a few bad actors can cause, is a big step away from that notion. Flagged Protection moves back toward the original wiki spirit. So I think it's fine if the name has a positive connotation. As a bonus, expectations often drive behaviors; if you act as if people are up to something good, they are more likely to get up to something good. And the opposite is certainly true as well. So I think a positive name isn't a bad thing. Practically, yes, I agree we can't assume all edits are good; if we were, there'd be little point to this project. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'd eventually like to see this getting to the point where multiple people can express an opinion on an edit. Knowing that 1 person reviewed an edit is good; knowing that 5 people did is better. And of course, this raises the question, if we're assuming that most editors are checking their work and are trying to improve the encyclopedia, why do we need to double check their work? We wouldn't call the system Second guess, but that's kind of what this explanation sounds like. For the purposes of naming, I don't think that's an issue. Insiders will know that not all edits are perfect, and edits and articles are getting continuously checked over. The main reason to put extra effort into choosing this name is for outsiders. I'd wager that most of them still have no idea how this works. At this point people have to accept that Wikipedia does somehow function, but I doubt they know how or why. That on certain articles we will review changes before they go live seems perfectly natural and very positive to most non-Wikipedians that I've talked to about this. Especially when you frame it in terms of BLP, which is one of the potent forces driving the adoption of this. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Well, what James Alexander says - maybe we can make up something of edit. Checked edit. Ziko 2010/5/24 William Pietri will...@scissor.com: On 05/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: In German Wikipedia, our word gesichtet is a little bit strange. Sichten is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness. That's funny. Internally, especially in technical discussions, sighted gets used a fair bit. All this time I'd been assuming that, however weird sighted sounded in English, it must be perfectly good German. For non-native speakers, sighted is rarely used in English. The main uses I can think of are to describe a person who isn't blind (For the hike we paired a sighted person with each blind one), for spotting rare animals, or for an archaic nautical flavor (Cap'n! The bosun's mate has sighted the pirate ship from the fo'csle!). As they say, there's sometimes a quality in a good translation that you just can't get in the original. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/23/2010 07:51 PM, David Levy wrote: William Pietri wrote: I think insiders will adjust to any name we choose, as some of our existing names attest. So I think as long as the name isn't hideous or actively misleading, then my main criterion is how it comes across to novices. For them, I'd suspect most will take double check as it's used colloquially, My understanding is that we seek to avoid colloquialisms, which are particularly difficult for non-native English speakers to comprehend. In theory, certainly. In practice, I have a hard time believing that non-native speakers would struggle with a name Double Check more than they'd struggle with any of the other names. And honestly, if I were not already familiar with the process in question, I would interpret Double Check to mean checked twice after submission (and I'm a native English speaker and Wikipedian since 2005). Someone unfamiliar with our existing processes might assume that everything is routinely checked once by an outside party (and this is an additional check). Such potential for misunderstanding is non-trivial, as this feature's deployment is likely to generate significant mainstream media coverage. I think that any name we choose is going to leave a lot of people confused about what's going on, especially if they sit their and ruminate on it. The most we can ask of a name is that it gives them a vague sense of what's going on, and doesn't cause too much confusion as they read further. but if some do get the notion that it's checked twice by others rather than once, I see little harm done. If the general public is led to believe that we're instituting a second check because an existing check isn't working (as evidenced by the disturbing edits already widely reported), this will be quite injurious to Wikipedia's reputation. I know that these names have been worked over extensively by Jay and Moka, who have a lot of experience dealing with reporters and the general public. They were pretty happy with the two names that were part of the initial proposal from Rob, so I am willing to trust their professional judgment as far as reaction from the press and the person on the street. More, in fact, than I trust my own, as I know that I'm tainted by long years as a programmer and as a participant here and in Ward's wiki. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
William Pietri wrote: Sorry if I was unclear. I was speaking about the naming issue. I think it's ok if our name for this generally assumes the happy case. I disagree. I think that it should be as clear as possible that this process exists to counter inappropriate edits, not as an Orwellian measure intended to be used indiscriminately throughout the encyclopedia (because we want to double check good edits before allowing them to attain normal status). I understand what you mean (we assume that most edits will be good even in a case in which a relatively small number of bad edits renders this feature necessary), but it's unrealistic to expect that complicated concept to come across. We seek a name that requires as little elaboration as possible. The essence of a wiki, both notionally and practically, is the assumption that people are generally doing something good. Leaving the incorrect impression that we intend to routinely double check edits in this manner conveys something very different. Protection, which focuses on the trouble a few bad actors can cause, is a big step away from that notion. Flagged Protection moves back toward the original wiki spirit. But it still exists for the purpose of countering inappropriate edits. I see no reason to pretend otherwise. In fact, given the negative publicity that some such edits have caused, I view this as extremely important to convey. Downplaying the feature as a reaction to something happy strikes me as precisely the wrong approach. So I think it's fine if the name has a positive connotation. And that connotation should be we're countering inappropriate edits, not we assume that everything's okay, but we'll humor the concerns. Of course, I'm not proposing that we use a term like Vandal Buster. I'm saying that the name itself should imply nothing about the edits' quality. Revision Review is perfectly neutral (and much clearer than Double Check, which has inapplicable connotations and doesn't even specify what's being checked) and thus far has generated more support than anything else has. My understanding is that we seek to avoid colloquialisms, which are particularly difficult for non-native English speakers to comprehend. In theory, certainly. In practice, I have a hard time believing that non-native speakers would struggle with a name Double Check more than they'd struggle with any of the other names. I've already noted that if I didn't possess prior knowledge of the feature's nature, the name Double Check would confuse *me* (a native English speaker). You expect non-native English speakers to grasp a colloquial usage (and see no advantage in a name composed of words whose dictionary meanings accurately describe the intended concept)? I think that any name we choose is going to leave a lot of people confused about what's going on, especially if they sit their and ruminate on it. The most we can ask of a name is that it gives them a vague sense of what's going on, and doesn't cause too much confusion as they read further. The purpose of this request is to select the best (i.e. most informative and least confusing) name possible. I know that these names have been worked over extensively by Jay and Moka, who have a lot of experience dealing with reporters and the general public. They were pretty happy with the two names that were part of the initial proposal from Rob, so I am willing to trust their professional judgment as far as reaction from the press and the person on the street. More, in fact, than I trust my own, as I know that I'm tainted by long years as a programmer and as a participant here and in Ward's wiki. Rob has explicitly asked us to comment on these names and set up a forum in which to do so (and propose alternatives). You've vigorously defended the name drawing the most opposition and declined to comment on the name drawing the most support, and that's fine. But please don't suggest that we're wasting our time by doing what Rob asked of us. David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
David Levy wrote: William Pietri wrote: I know that these names have been worked over extensively by Jay and Moka, who have a lot of experience dealing with reporters and the general public. They were pretty happy with the two names that were part of the initial proposal from Rob, so I am willing to trust their professional judgment as far as reaction from the press and the person on the street. More, in fact, than I trust my own, as I know that I'm tainted by long years as a programmer and as a participant here and in Ward's wiki. Rob has explicitly asked us to comment on these names and set up a forum in which to do so (and propose alternatives). You've vigorously defended the name drawing the most opposition and declined to comment on the name drawing the most support, and that's fine. But please don't suggest that we're wasting our time by doing what Rob asked of us. He isn't. You edited out the text William was replying to, but in expressing his trust that the public relations professionals have the greatest expertise as to how the general public will receive the terminology, he was responding directly to speculation about how the general public would receive it. There's nothing in that comment to suggest that the community should not be involved or is wasting its time. When dealing with multiple intended audiences (in this case, editors, readers, and the media), there is inevitably a balancing act in targeting your choice of words. It is unlikely that any name will be absolutely perfect for all use cases. Some degree of editorial judgment and discretion will have to be applied, and that's exactly the purpose of this discussion. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Hoi, Flagged Revisions is a MediaWiki extension that is used by many people on the English Wikipedia. Not everyone uses the English language user interface. Consequently when you decide to change them locally, all those people will not understand what is going on. Localisations are done at translatewiki.net. When the messages are altered on the Wiki itself, all the localisations that have been created will be not only non functional, they will be wrong. Have your discussion about terminology but have this discussion translate in changes in the software not in changes in the local message file. Thanks, GerardM On 23 May 2010 22:45, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Alex wrote: Except unless we consider the initial edit to be the first check, its not correct. Only one person independent from the editor is reviewing each edit. This is one of my main objections to the term. The write-in candidate Revision Review appears to combine the best elements of Pending Revisions and Double Check. Tango and I (who strongly prefer opposing candidates) agree that it's a good option. It seems like an excellent solution, and I hope that it can garner sufficient support. Irrespective of his/her opinion, everyone should weigh in at the designated discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote: On 22 May 2010 02:09, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: While that is true, making up names without any real thought is what has resulted in the mess we have now where most people have no idea what the differences are between Wikipedia, Wikimedia and MediaWiki, since the names are all so similar. I think taking a little bit of time to come up with a sensible name is a good idea. Not to mention Wikia. But really, only those unfamiliar with Wikipedia get confused between the three. Ahem mea culpa O Lord God and all brethren, I must confess that sometimes I made a typographcal error Wikipedia Foundation here and there including on wikimediafoundation.org ... /mea culpa I totally agree with Tango and Philippe; the more frequently used a word would be, the less confusable naming is wanted. And as this really is only a background/editorial process, the name isn't _as_ significant. Admittedly, it's new editors who are most likely to not figure out why their edits haven't appeared yet (I was told anybody could edit this site. So why hasn't my improvement showing up? Do I need to refresh the page? … Argh!!!… rage quit; we lose an editor). But I don't know if they're going to care which name we choose, so long as it's understandable to the layman. YMMV. AGK ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: So I think it's fine if the name has a positive connotation. And that connotation should be we're countering inappropriate edits, not we assume that everything's okay, but we'll humor the concerns. Of course, I'm not proposing that we use a term like Vandal Buster. I'm saying that the name itself should imply nothing about the edits' quality. Hm. Accctttuualyy Why not something that _must_ be explained? Call it Garblesmook, for example. (or better, import a word from some obscure semi-dead language... Does anyone have a suggestion of an especially fitting word? Perhaps something Hawaiian?) The big danger of using something with an intuitive meaning is that you get the intuitive understanding. We _KNOW_ that the intuitive understanding of this feature is a misunderstanding. Revision Review is perfectly neutral (and much clearer than Double Check, which has inapplicable connotations and doesn't even specify what's being checked) and thus far has generated more support than anything else has. I think that if were to ask some random person with a basic laymen knowledge of what a new feature of Wikipedia called revision review did and what benefits and problems it would have, I'd get results which were largely unmatched with the reality of it. (Not that I think that any word is good) [responding to the inner message] I think that any name we choose is going to leave a lot of people confused about what's going on, especially if they sit their and ruminate on it. The most we can ask of a name is that it gives them a vague sense of what's going on, and doesn't cause too much confusion as they read further. Thats a false choice. We could use a name which expresses _nothing_ about what is going on, thus making it clear that you can't figure it out simply from the name. Just a thought. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/24/2010 07:34 AM, David Levy wrote: Rob has explicitly asked us to comment on these names and set up a forum in which to do so (and propose alternatives). You've vigorously defended the name drawing the most opposition and declined to comment on the name drawing the most support, and that's fine. But please don't suggest that we're wasting our time by doing what Rob asked of us. I'm not arguing for any name in particular. I have argued against some notions about names that I think are incorrect. Broadly, I think it's easy for insiders to incorrectly use themselves as proxies for what regular users will think. That's a very common mistake in my field, so I spoke up. But I said before and I say again that am avoiding having an opinion on whatever the best name is. It's a lot of work to do it properly, especially for me as an insider, and I don't have time for it right now. I'm not suggesting that people are wasting their time working on this, and in fact think just the opposite. I think it's great, and supported bringing this up for community discussion. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/24/2010 08:49 AM, Nathan wrote: Edit check, review gap, review delay, check delay, wait approval, content pause, review pause, second check, second approval, etc. There are lots of possible names for this feature. Sometimes I worry that the Foundation staff work for a company built upon the value of community generated content and community sourced ideas, but don't truly *believe* that this value exists or can be relied upon. The best example is the fund-raising drive, when much of the best and most useful content came from the community after the original (and expensive) content was widely panned. Why not involve the community at the beginning? A request for endorsement of your favored options is not the same thing, and fails to harness real community enthusiasm. A legitimate worry, but in this case I don't think that's what happened. A few months back we discussed changing the name, but nothing exciting resulted from it. We couldn't come up with anything that seemed significantly better. Recently, two things happened. One, we were working on all the little bits of text, trying to choose good labels for things. We'd left that for relatively late in the process because it's easier to do that in a single sweep. Two, as part of pre-rollout activities, a broader set of people got involved. Both of those activities caused people to look at the name anew, and a number of people got together to take another swing at it. They ended up with two candidates that they liked better. At that point, we involved the community to get a broader opinion. But we're all committed to shipping this as soon as possible, and that a new name, while nice, wasn't important enough to delay release. Thus, an attempt at keeping things quick. That again is based in my interpretation of what the community wants. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Michael Snow wrote: You edited out the text William was replying to, but in expressing his trust that the public relations professionals have the greatest expertise as to how the general public will receive the terminology, he was responding directly to speculation about how the general public would receive it. There's nothing in that comment to suggest that the community should not be involved or is wasting its time. I hope that it's clear that I don't edit out text that I perceive as contextually necessary (and don't intend to distort anyone's words). In this instance, I don't regard William's response as dependent upon my preceding comment. When dealing with multiple intended audiences (in this case, editors, readers, and the media), there is inevitably a balancing act in targeting your choice of words. It is unlikely that any name will be absolutely perfect for all use cases. Some degree of editorial judgment and discretion will have to be applied, and that's exactly the purpose of this discussion. Agreed. Gregory Maxwell wrote: Hm. Accctttuualyy Why not something that _must_ be explained? Call it Garblesmook, for example. (or better, import a word from some obscure semi-dead language... Does anyone have a suggestion of an especially fitting word? Perhaps something Hawaiian?) The big danger of using something with an intuitive meaning is that you get the intuitive understanding. We _KNOW_ that the intuitive understanding of this feature is a misunderstanding. Our goal, as I understand it, is to select a name that provides as much information as we can convey without causing substantial, widespread confusion. So if it were impossible to convey *any* amount of information without causing substantial, widespread confusion, the above approach would be best. In my assessment (and that of others), the term Double Check is likely to foster misunderstanding and the term Revision Review is not. This is not to say that it will actively counter misunderstanding (which will arise no matter what name is used), but it seems unlikely to introduce new misconceptions or reinforce those that already exist. I think that if were to ask some random person with a basic laymen knowledge of what a new feature of Wikipedia called revision review did and what benefits and problems it would have, I'd get results which were largely unmatched with the reality of it. We don't expect the general public to possess intimate knowledge and won't ask random persons to provide such details. I don't believe that the name Revision Review generally would encourage people lacking sufficient information to jump to conclusions (unless pressed, as in the hypothetical scenario that you describe). For those learning about the feature, it would be clear, memorable and repeatable. (Not that I think that any word is good) Understood. :) We could use a name which expresses _nothing_ about what is going on, thus making it clear that you can't figure it out simply from the name. In this case, perhaps to a greater extent than in any other, we want to generate beneficial media attention (to address the negative coverage that Wikipedia has received regarding the problems that this process is intended to mitigate). Revision Review is a term that the press can latch onto and run with. (So is Double Check, but I believe that it would cause confusion.) In this respect, a term with no discernible meaning simply wouldn't work well. William Pietri wrote: I'm not arguing for any name in particular. I have argued against some notions about names that I think are incorrect. Broadly, I think it's easy for insiders to incorrectly use themselves as proxies for what regular users will think. That's a very common mistake in my field, so I spoke up. But I said before and I say again that am avoiding having an opinion on whatever the best name is. It's a lot of work to do it properly, especially for me as an insider, and I don't have time for it right now. I'm not suggesting that people are wasting their time working on this, and in fact think just the opposite. I think it's great, and supported bringing this up for community discussion. Thanks for clarifying. Nathan wrote: Why not involve the community at the beginning? A request for endorsement of your favored options is not the same thing, and fails to harness real community enthusiasm. In fairness, Rob stated that while time is of the essence, the community is welcome to propose alternatives, and he created a discussion page section for that purpose. David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/24/2010 08:31 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: We could use a name which expresses_nothing_ about what is going on, thus making it clear that you can't figure it out simply from the name. That did cross my mind, and it was tempting. But practically, many busy journalists, causal readers, and novice editors may base a lot of their initial reaction on the name alone, or on related language in the interface. By choosing an arbitrary name, some fraction of people will dig deeper, but another fraction will just retain their perplexity and/or alienation. Basically, an arbitrary name struck me as a wasted opportunity to convey at least a hint to a lot of people, so I didn't even suggest any names like this. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On 05/24/2010 07:34 AM, David Levy wrote: I disagree. I think that it should be as clear as possible that this process exists to counter inappropriate edits, not as an Orwellian measure intended to be used indiscriminately throughout the encyclopedia (because we want to double check good edits before allowing them to attain normal status). That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't thought about. I could see it going either way. On the one hand, names are powerful. On the other hand, they lose some of their power once familiar, and the Wikipedia community is often so thoroughly skeptical that calling the feature Free Money For Everybody might not be enough to cause indiscriminate use. Either way, it's a good point, and I hope that people weighing in on this think of names from that angle too. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.comwrote: That did cross my mind, and it was tempting. But practically, many busy journalists, causal readers, and novice editors may base a lot of their initial reaction on the name alone, or on related language in the interface. By choosing an arbitrary name, some fraction of people will dig deeper, but another fraction will just retain their perplexity and/or alienation. This is a really good point, and brings up another point for everyone to consider. If the name is not *immediately* evocative of something to the casual reader, it might as well be called the Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch. It will be a blank slate as far as journalists and the world at large is concerned. I think we're better off with a term that gets us in the ballpark with little or no mental energy than we are picking something that has clinical precision, but takes more than a few milliseconds of consideration to get the the gist. Rob ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.comwrote: That did cross my mind, and it was tempting. But practically, many busy journalists, causal readers, and novice editors may base a lot of their initial reaction on the name alone, or on related language in the interface. By choosing an arbitrary name, some fraction of people will dig deeper, but another fraction will just retain their perplexity and/or alienation. This is a really good point, and brings up another point for everyone to consider. If the name is not *immediately* evocative of something to the casual reader, it might as well be called the Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch. It will be a blank slate as far as journalists and the world at large is concerned. I think we're better off with a term that gets us in the ballpark with little or no mental energy than we are picking something that has clinical precision, but takes more than a few milliseconds of consideration to get the the gist. I support Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: casual reader, it might as well be called the Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch. It will be a blank slate as far as journalists and the world at large is concerned. I support Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch. And I have now updated the illustration: http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/endoswitch.png (Are people really going to continue arguing that the naming matters much?) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
Hi Everyone - Our next strategic planning office hours will be: 04:00-05:00 UTC, Wednesday, 26 May. Local timezones can be checked at http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010month=5day=26hour=04min=0sec=0p1=0 As always, you can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. More details at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours There has been tremendous discussion around movement goals/priorities over the last week or so, and this should be a great experience to talk about them in more detail, as well as discuss next steps. Thanks! Hope to see many of you there. Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
I don't believe we should aim at a completely meaningless name out of concern that some people may not get the finer details of what we try to convey. If we make that a rule for all features yet to be named we will again have made our world a bit more impenetrable. Remember how our 100+ acronyms are often cited as big hurdle for outsiders? Revision Review (or any similar term) clearly signals this is a human process, which IMHO gets it 80% right already. If Mediawiki had been named Mediawiki Engine, and Wikimedia had been named Wikimedia Organization, part of the current confusion for outsiders would already have gone. They may not understand from the name what kind of engine, of what kind of organization, but they will have less trouble to tell these terms apart. Erik Zachte ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
Earlier: If Mediawiki had been named Mediawiki Engine, and Wikimedia had been named Wikimedia Organization, part of the current confusion for outsiders would already have gone. They may not understand from the name what kind of engine, of what kind of organization, but they will have less trouble to tell these terms apart. Eh I realize that example was not well chosen. I take it back ;-) People would of course confuse Wikimedia Organization (the movement) with Wikimedia Foundation (the organization). Erik Zachte ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, As William alluded to, a bunch of us have been studying the user interface for Flagged Protections and figuring out how to make it more intuitive. Thanks for asking about the name -- though I suspect there's nothing that will make everyone happy it's better to ask and hopefully get a better name out of it. - Pending Revisions - this name is very consistent with what everyone will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be used for (i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions) - Double Check - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad community). I like Pending Revisions, which is basically what's going on, and seems to convey the whole process (pending for what? someone may ask). I also like Revision Review or Edit Review, though those could be interpreted as a review of something else, like all of the edits. Of those choices the former is alliterative, the second slightly less jargony. Double Check is cute but I would think also prone to misinterpretation, since I dunno how much checking will go along with flagging a revision. And double check what? Facts? Misspellings? I like the names that emphasize that it is revisions/edits that are getting checked. Maybe the explanation of what is this could say something like Pending Revisions is a a process to double check edits... as a compromise. -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming Flagged Protections
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: I support Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l This suggestion is both jestful and true, as you mentioned above. There's a reason Jabberwocky is a celebrated poem. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Ryan Kaldari joins Wikimedia
Greetings, I'm very excited to welcome Ryan Kaldari to the Wikimedia Foundation as the Front End developer for fundraising. Ryan joins us from MTV Networks: Country Music Television, where he worked as a web developer responsible for several integration and architecture projects. Previous to that he helped develop Sitemason, an enterprise content management system used by numerous businesses, organizations, and colleges. He's a long time Wikimedian who's been editing Wikipedia since 2004 and has been an admin since 2005. Some of you may have met him at the Paris Multimedia conference. You can find what's kept him busy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari He'll be starting June 1st and will work in the San Francisco office. Ryan will bring in some much needed skills and experience to our fundraising software developments. He'll help us catch up on a lot of our pending fundraising software development projects, develop new tools and improve general infrastructure and will bring more general awesomeness to the team. He'll also work extensivelyto support and improve CiviCRM as our fundraising database platform. Please join me in welcoming Ryan to the Wikimedia team! We'll be setting up his email as his start day gets closer but until then, you can reach him at kald...@gmail.com. -- Tomasz Finc Engineering Program Manger - Fundraising, Mobile, Offline ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Ryan Kaldari joins Wikimedia
Awesome. I've met Ryan, this is great to hear. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Tomasz Finc tf...@wikimedia.org wrote: Greetings, I'm very excited to welcome Ryan Kaldari to the Wikimedia Foundation as the Front End developer for fundraising. Ryan joins us from MTV Networks: Country Music Television, where he worked as a web developer responsible for several integration and architecture projects. Previous to that he helped develop Sitemason, an enterprise content management system used by numerous businesses, organizations, and colleges. He's a long time Wikimedian who's been editing Wikipedia since 2004 and has been an admin since 2005. Some of you may have met him at the Paris Multimedia conference. You can find what's kept him busy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari He'll be starting June 1st and will work in the San Francisco office. Ryan will bring in some much needed skills and experience to our fundraising software developments. He'll help us catch up on a lot of our pending fundraising software development projects, develop new tools and improve general infrastructure and will bring more general awesomeness to the team. He'll also work extensivelyto support and improve CiviCRM as our fundraising database platform. Please join me in welcoming Ryan to the Wikimedia team! We'll be setting up his email as his start day gets closer but until then, you can reach him at kald...@gmail.com. -- Tomasz Finc Engineering Program Manger - Fundraising, Mobile, Offline ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
