Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections
The most important priority of all is attracting new editors, not preventing vandalism. Vandalism we can prevent in other ways if we have editors, but the absence of new editors prevents achieving anything at all. Consequently, the likelihood of getting community approval for all pages is very low. The successful argument --the only argument which finally get a sufficient consensus--was that flagging was a less restrictive environment for new editors than semi-protection. The question now is whether it will be so obtrusive and awkward, that the non-editing of semi-protection makes more sense than fruitless and disappointing trying-to-edit with flagged protection. Unlike some of the other skeptics, I am not willing to predict failure at this. But that we don't even know what to call it remains an indicator that we do not know how it will be perceived. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:39 PM, James Heilman wrote: > I think the best way of rolling this out if it is possible would be to > replace all semi protected articles with flagged protected or"double check" > protected. If it works well we could than either add more pages or apply it > to all pages. > > This would make it more seamless, draw less potentially negative media > attention, and allow all those who will be dealing with these edits to > figure out how the system works. We do not want to end up like the baggage > terminal at that new terminal in London. > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections
I think the best way of rolling this out if it is possible would be to replace all semi protected articles with flagged protected or"double check" protected. If it works well we could than either add more pages or apply it to all pages. This would make it more seamless, draw less potentially negative media attention, and allow all those who will be dealing with these edits to figure out how the system works. We do not want to end up like the baggage terminal at that new terminal in London. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ 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 Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:14 PM, William Pietri wrote: > On 05/26/2010 07:05 PM, Aphaia wrote: > > Personally I support "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch" so your > > direction saddened me a bit, anyway > > > > I think the only solution is to make that a user-selectable preference. > > William > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ^That. Drop down in preferences, some cheesy default. -- ~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
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Rob Lanphier 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. > > In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring > out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at large, it > became clear that the name "Flagged Protections" doesn't adequately describe > the technology as it looks to readers and editors. It's a tough name to work > with. This iteration of the technology is very different from the German > implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration. > Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this > feature actually opens up pages currently protected so that everyone can > edit. > > So, we would like to make a change to the name of the "Flagged Protections" > feature prior to deploying it to en.wikipedia.org. Under the hood, we would > still be using the "FlaggedRevs" extension (no change there), but the name > that we talk about in the user-visible portions of the site and > documentation would be something new. This is still the same extension which is, and will be, used on many wikis, not just the German Wikipedia. The horse has bolted; discussion about revising terminology should be held on meta, and the projects already using this extension should be engaged. Also, the English Wikipedia implementation of it will likely change over time, so I don't think it is a good idea to create new terminology which is based on this initial en.wp confuguration. I agree with Greg: if you are going to give this feature a new name, don't attach a lot of meaning to the new name, as it will probably underwhelm, and be confusing after a few configuration or code changes. Using a simple word from a dead or obscure language is a sensible approach. Rather than invent terminology, outward communications should be about this new feature being just another tool to improve for our existing "Patrolling" processes (which is a simple term already used for New Page Patrolling, RecentChanges Patrolling, etc). Editors and media wanting to delve deeper than the high level processes are going to be talking tech, which means referring to it as FlaggedRevs. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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 05/26/2010 07:05 PM, Aphaia wrote: > Personally I support "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch" so your > direction saddened me a bit, anyway > I think the only solution is to make that a user-selectable preference. 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"
Personally I support "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch" so your
direction saddened me a bit, anyway
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> It looks like the discussion on the name is dying down, so I'd like to
> summarize what I think we've heard here:
> 1. There's no clear favorite out there. In addition to the two ideas we
> put forward ("Pending Revisions" and "Double Check"), there's been quite a
> bit of discussion around alternatives, for example: "Revision Review" and
> "Pending Edits".
> 2. There's are still some that aren't comfortable changing the name away
> from "Flagged Protection", but that doesn't appear to be a widely held view.
> 3. Some people like "Double Check", but some people dislike it a lot. The
> people who like it seem to be comfortable with the colloquial use of it,
> whereas the people that dislike it don't like the lack of precision and the
> possible confusion created by the use of the word "double".
> 4. "Pending Revisions" seems to be something most people would settle for.
> It's probably not the hands down favorite of too many people, but it
> doesn't seem to provoke the same dislike that "Double Check" does.
> 5. "Pending Edits" is a simplification of "Pending Revisions" that seems to
> have some support, as it replaces the jargony "Revision" with the easier
> "Edits"
While I admit revisions sounds a jargon here, but MediaWiki is
consistent in its terminology me thinks. What we call edits casually
are "revisions" in this terminology. Revisions look to be used for
calling each relics of editing actions, and edits seem to be preserved
for this action (e.g. tab for "edit"). I appreciate wording
consistency greatly for the sake of internationalization.
MediaWiki is an international project whose
internationalization/localization owes mainly non-native English
speakers. Terminology inconsistency may provoke unnecessary confusion
among those translators, or not. I understand this feature is designed
aiming to English Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean necessarily it should
be used on English Wikipedia only for decades, and anyway it'll be a
subject to localization as well other MediaWiki features and their
messages.
Casual and colloquial expressions are sometimes rather hazard for
non-native language speakers, in particular the wording is isolated
from the expected terminology. I expect the team takes this aspect
into consideration too, not only its main and direct target, but also
users in future.
> 6. "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch" seems to have gathered a cult
> following. Yes, we have a sense of humor. No, we're not going there. :-)
>
> A little background as to where we're at. "Double Check" had an
> enthusiastic following at the WMF office, but we're not inclined to push
> that one if it's going to be a fight (it's far from the unanimous choice at
> WMF anyway). "Revision Review" seems to be heading a bit too far into
> jargon land for our comfort. "Pending Revisions" is the compromise that
> seems to stand up to scrutiny. A variation such as "Pending Edits" or
> "Pending Changes" also seems acceptable to us.
>
> That's where we stand now. If you haven't spoken up yet, now is the time,
> since we're only a couple of days from making a final decision on this.
> Please weigh in here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology
>
> Thanks
> Rob
> ___
> 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"
Hi everyone,
It looks like the discussion on the name is dying down, so I'd like to
summarize what I think we've heard here:
1. There's no clear favorite out there. In addition to the two ideas we
put forward ("Pending Revisions" and "Double Check"), there's been quite a
bit of discussion around alternatives, for example: "Revision Review" and
"Pending Edits".
2. There's are still some that aren't comfortable changing the name away
from "Flagged Protection", but that doesn't appear to be a widely held view.
3. Some people like "Double Check", but some people dislike it a lot. The
people who like it seem to be comfortable with the colloquial use of it,
whereas the people that dislike it don't like the lack of precision and the
possible confusion created by the use of the word "double".
4. "Pending Revisions" seems to be something most people would settle for.
It's probably not the hands down favorite of too many people, but it
doesn't seem to provoke the same dislike that "Double Check" does.
5. "Pending Edits" is a simplification of "Pending Revisions" that seems to
have some support, as it replaces the jargony "Revision" with the easier
"Edits"
6. "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch" seems to have gathered a cult
following. Yes, we have a sense of humor. No, we're not going there. :-)
A little background as to where we're at. "Double Check" had an
enthusiastic following at the WMF office, but we're not inclined to push
that one if it's going to be a fight (it's far from the unanimous choice at
WMF anyway). "Revision Review" seems to be heading a bit too far into
jargon land for our comfort. "Pending Revisions" is the compromise that
seems to stand up to scrutiny. A variation such as "Pending Edits" or
"Pending Changes" also seems acceptable to us.
That's where we stand now. If you haven't spoken up yet, now is the time,
since we're only a couple of days from making a final decision on this.
Please weigh in here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology
Thanks
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"
Erik Zachte wrote: > Revision Review (or any similar term) clearly signals this is a human > process, which IMHO gets it 80% right already. Review of a "revision cue" or "edit cue" works. You are right, as both words "Flagged" and "Protections" convey an autocratic sense. Note, on wikien-l, some are discussing what kind of "revert etiquette" that Revision Review (formerly Flagged Protections) should use. "Revert etiquette" seems inherently contradicted, though its at a good sign that people are mindful that Revision Review can and probably will be used in the wrong way. -SC (crossposted to foundation-l and wikien-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 Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Rob Lanphier 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 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 2:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Lanphier 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, William Pietri wrote: > >> 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 10:21 AM, William Pietri wrote: > 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 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 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"
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 08:49 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"
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. Nathan ___ 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 Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David Levy 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 Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, AGK wrote:
> On 22 May 2010 02:09, Thomas Dalton 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
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 ...
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"
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 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"
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"
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"
On May 24, 2010, at 1:57 AM, "Erik Zachte" wrote: > 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? > Yes, a new editor may ask "pending what exactly?" and the plural "revisions" may bring frustration of thinking that there are many revisions ahead of his/hers in the queue. ___ 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"
Well, what James Alexander says - maybe we can make up something of
"edit". "Checked edit".
Ziko
2010/5/24 William Pietri :
> 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 07:56 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"
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"
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 wrote: > 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 : > > > > 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"
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 : > > 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"
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"
On 5/23/2010 8:40 PM, William Pietri wrote: > On 05/23/2010 02:13 PM, David Levy wrote: >> James Alexander wrote: >> >>> That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check" >>> something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the >>> original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting >>> legitimate and correct information into the article and checked to make sure >>> it didn't break any policies, it's just that because of problems on that >>> page we wanted to have someone double check. >>> >> That's a good attitude, but such an interpretation is far from >> intuitive. Our goal is to select a name that stands on its own as an >> unambiguous description, not one that requires background knowledge of >> our philosophies. >> >> I'll also point out that one of the English Wikipedia's most important >> policies is "ignore all rules," a major component of which is the >> principle that users needn't familiarize themselves with our policies >> (let alone "check to make sure" they aren't breaking them) before >> editing. >> > > Allow me to quote the whole policy: "If a rule prevents you from > improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That implies, in my view > correctly, that the person editing is presumed to set out with the > intention of making the encyclopedia better. > > 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. 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. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ 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: > 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. 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. > 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. 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 05/23/2010 06:37 PM, David Levy wrote: > And again, the main problem is ambiguity. "Double Check" can easily > be interpreted to mean that two separate post-submission checks are > occurring. It also is a chess term (and could be mistaken for a a > reference to that concept). > 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, but if some do get the notion that it's checked twice by others rather than once, I see little harm done. Personally, I think that's the direction that the system should take in the long term: there's no reason to stop multiple people from opining on an edit, and there's substantial potential benefit. > What is your opinion of the proposed name "Revision Review"? > I confess that I've mainly avoided having an opinion on this topic. Not that it isn't a worthy thing to consider; good names are incredibly important. It's just they're also a lot of work, and much of my attention is focused elsewhere. I suspect I'll be hesitantly fine with whatever name ends up getting picked. Fine because there are several good candidates and plenty of smart, skilled people involved. Hesitant because my preferred way to measure names is by user-testing them to see how names drive pre-use perception and in-use behavior. That's impractical here, so we really won't know how well our chosen name works until we see reactions to media stories and actual use. 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: > Allow me to quote the whole policy: "If a rule prevents you from > improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That implies, in my view > correctly, that the person editing is presumed to set out with the > intention of making the encyclopedia better. > > 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. But we aren't checking to ensure that the edits were performed in good faith (as even a gross BLP violation can be). We're checking to ensure that they're appropriate. And again, the main problem is ambiguity. "Double Check" can easily be interpreted to mean that two separate post-submission checks are occurring. It also is a chess term (and could be mistaken for a a reference to that concept). What is your opinion of the proposed name "Revision Review"? 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 05/23/2010 02:13 PM, David Levy wrote: > James Alexander wrote: > >> That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check" >> something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the >> original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting >> legitimate and correct information into the article and checked to make sure >> it didn't break any policies, it's just that because of problems on that >> page we wanted to have someone double check. >> > That's a good attitude, but such an interpretation is far from > intuitive. Our goal is to select a name that stands on its own as an > unambiguous description, not one that requires background knowledge of > our philosophies. > > I'll also point out that one of the English Wikipedia's most important > policies is "ignore all rules," a major component of which is the > principle that users needn't familiarize themselves with our policies > (let alone "check to make sure" they aren't breaking them) before > editing. > Allow me to quote the whole policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That implies, in my view correctly, that the person editing is presumed to set out with the intention of making the encyclopedia better. 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. 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"
James Alexander wrote: > That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check" > something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the > original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting > legitimate and correct information into the article and checked to make sure > it didn't break any policies, it's just that because of problems on that > page we wanted to have someone double check. That's a good attitude, but such an interpretation is far from intuitive. Our goal is to select a name that stands on its own as an unambiguous description, not one that requires background knowledge of our philosophies. I'll also point out that one of the English Wikipedia's most important policies is "ignore all rules," a major component of which is the principle that users needn't familiarize themselves with our policies (let alone "check to make sure" they aren't breaking them) before editing. 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"
Sorry, the correct page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk: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
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM, 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. > > -- > Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) > > That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check" something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting legitimate and correct information into the article and checked to make sure it didn't break any policies, it's just that because of problems on that page we wanted to have someone double check. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@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 23 May 2010 18:03, Pharos wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Beaudette > wrote: > > tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what > > we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected, > > but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and > > understandable to the average person. > > I agree. Simple words are good. > > Thanks, > Richard > (User:Pharos) > +1 -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata > > > Philippe > > (speaking in my capacity as a volunteer, and not as an employee of the > > Foundation) > > > ___ 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 5/23/2010 1:58 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what > we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected, > but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and > understandable to the average person. 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. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ 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 Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what > we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected, > but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and > understandable to the average person. I agree. Simple words are good. Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) > Philippe > (speaking in my capacity as a volunteer, and not as an employee of the > Foundation) > > On May 23, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Still Waterising wrote: > >> I think "Pending Revisions" is an excellent name. No need to look >> further. >> >> ___ >> 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 > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected, but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and understandable to the average person. Philippe (speaking in my capacity as a volunteer, and not as an employee of the Foundation) On May 23, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Still Waterising wrote: > I think "Pending Revisions" is an excellent name. No need to look > further. > > ___ > 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"
I think "Pending Revisions" is an excellent name. No need to look further. ___ 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 Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote: > Contradiction aside, I think that what you've proven here is that > under no circumstances should any engineer be permitted to name > anything. We should institute this as a rule in Wikimedia development > in general. > Oh why not? We end up with great features like the Spam Blacklist ;-) -Chad ___ 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 Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > No, it really isn't a legitimate concern. It wasn't a legitimate concern > when the "AbuseFilter" was enabled and every user had a public "abuse log". > And with that feature came the ability to tag edits. We now mark edits with > generally inflammatory remarks that are impossible to have removed. Naming > wasn't a concern when file description pages were all prefixed with > "Image:". It wasn't a concern when RevDelete was enabled (first for > oversighters, then for everyone else). RevDelete doesn't apply to just > revisions, and the user rights associated with it could not have been more > confusingly named if someone had tried deliberately. Contradiction aside, I think that what you've proven here is that under no circumstances should any engineer be permitted to name anything. We should institute this as a rule in Wikimedia development in general. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ ___ 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 3:16 PM, William Pietri wrote: > On 05/22/2010 09:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote: >> If I were a betting man, I'd say the next >> "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get >> distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'll >> see you in 2011. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. >> > > Would you care to become a betting man? It would be a deep and abiding > pleasure to take your money. My friend Ben Franklin is pretty sure > you're wrong. > As a third party, I would love to see both of you stick to this and follow the bet through to payout, one way or the other. :) -Chad ___ 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 05/22/2010 09:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > If I were a betting man, I'd say the next > "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get > distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'll > see you in 2011. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. > Would you care to become a betting man? It would be a deep and abiding pleasure to take your money. My friend Ben Franklin is pretty sure you're wrong. Of course, as to proving it, we're doing our best. Open code, open project plan, weekly project updates, weekly releases to a labs environment that any interested party can use. And lately, more people, both internally and externally are getting involved as we prepare for release. If it is all a conspiracy, it's either getting bigger and bigger or cleverer and cleverer. 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"
MZMcBride wrote: > No, it really isn't a legitimate concern. Contrary to your claim that "nobody cares," some of us obviously do. Does this mean that we're in on the conspiracy, or have we merely been brainwashed to go along with it? Or is it possible that people simply disagree with you in good faith? > To hear that feature naming has suddenly become an issue sounds like > bullshit to me. You cited various MediaWiki elements whose names are/were less than optimal. Have you considered that perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation is attempting to learn from its mistakes and get this one right? > The worst that happens? A few power-users confuse their terminology. The feature's deployment likely will be reported in mainstream media, so its name's impact will extend far beyond the small percentage of the population that edits the wikis. > Think I'm wrong? Prove it. I seek to prove nothing. I have no crystal ball and cannot predict whether there will be further delays. This is irrelevant to your assertion that the Wikimedia Foundation is "erecting pseudo-hurdles" to this end, for which the burden of proof is on you (and for which an announcement that "we really need to have a name fully locked down no later than Friday, May 28" is not compelling evidence). 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"
It is EXTREMELY important to use proper expressions. Otherwise you will create confusion and even scare people away. When I helped preparing the introduction of "flagged revisions" on Dutch Wikipedia I came up with "marked versions". Above all, it's versions we are talking about, not "revisions" which get a "flag". A flag is for me something you put on something that is notable, but it is our goal that the marked versions are the normal thing. So the procedure is: A sighter is sighting a new version of an article, and after sighting he is putting a mark saying "this version is sighted". Only versions marked as "sighted" are shown to our readers. Kind regards Ziko 2010/5/22 MZMcBride : > David Levy wrote: >> The feature's name is a legitimate concern, and I see no attempt to >> erect any hurdles. (On the contrary, Rob unambiguously noted that >> time is of the essence.) > > No, it really isn't a legitimate concern. It wasn't a legitimate concern > when the "AbuseFilter" was enabled and every user had a public "abuse log". > And with that feature came the ability to tag edits. We now mark edits with > generally inflammatory remarks that are impossible to have removed. Naming > wasn't a concern when file description pages were all prefixed with > "Image:". It wasn't a concern when RevDelete was enabled (first for > oversighters, then for everyone else). RevDelete doesn't apply to just > revisions, and the user rights associated with it could not have been more > confusingly named if someone had tried deliberately. > > To hear that feature naming has suddenly become an issue sounds like > bullshit to me. The worst that happens? A few power-users confuse their > terminology. And Jay Walsh gets a headache trying to explain this mess in a > press release. God forbid. If anything, using consistent terminology that > has been used previously in blog posts and press releases would be better > than inventing an entirely new and foreign term. > > Please, don't be fooled by the "it'll just be another X days when Y happens > and then we'll be good to go!" Time and again, Wikimedia has used this > tactic with this exact project. If I were a betting man, I'd say the next > "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get > distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'll > see you in 2011. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. > > MZMcBride > > > > ___ > 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"
David Levy wrote: > The feature's name is a legitimate concern, and I see no attempt to > erect any hurdles. (On the contrary, Rob unambiguously noted that > time is of the essence.) No, it really isn't a legitimate concern. It wasn't a legitimate concern when the "AbuseFilter" was enabled and every user had a public "abuse log". And with that feature came the ability to tag edits. We now mark edits with generally inflammatory remarks that are impossible to have removed. Naming wasn't a concern when file description pages were all prefixed with "Image:". It wasn't a concern when RevDelete was enabled (first for oversighters, then for everyone else). RevDelete doesn't apply to just revisions, and the user rights associated with it could not have been more confusingly named if someone had tried deliberately. To hear that feature naming has suddenly become an issue sounds like bullshit to me. The worst that happens? A few power-users confuse their terminology. And Jay Walsh gets a headache trying to explain this mess in a press release. God forbid. If anything, using consistent terminology that has been used previously in blog posts and press releases would be better than inventing an entirely new and foreign term. Please, don't be fooled by the "it'll just be another X days when Y happens and then we'll be good to go!" Time and again, Wikimedia has used this tactic with this exact project. If I were a betting man, I'd say the next "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'll see you in 2011. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. MZMcBride ___ 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 05/21/2010 07:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: > >> implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration. >> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this >> > [snip] > >>- Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no "flagging" in >>our proposed deployment) >> > I guess I'm confused, because I see flagging all over this but you're > saying there is none? > To the best of my understanding: > > The flags are what distinguishes approved revisions from non-approved > revisions and on designated pages controls which revisions are > displayed by default to anons. > I think under the hood this is true; as a programmer, the term flag, as in a binary condition marker often found in sets, makes sense to me here. But I don't think it does in normal English usage. In non-jargon usage, one normally flags something for review or attention, and here's it's just the opposite: when one takes an action with Flagged Protection, one marks the item as trusted. >> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this >> > The protection interface controls and has long a number of things > related to the permissions granted to manipulate a page. The same > protection interface allows a page to be "move protected" for example, > which doesn't do anything related to _editing_ but instead prevents > the page from being moved to a new name. Following that mode, this > feature enables the protection of the flagging process on pages which > users deem require that level of protection— just as there as is the > case for the other protective modes. > You're totally right that Flagged Revisions and Flagged Protection fit perfectly well from the perspective of a technical insider. I think if that were the only issue, then we'd just stick with what we had. The concern here is for the millions of outsiders that will come in contact with this, and the many outsiders that we would like to come at least a little farther inside. For those people, a name that makes sense only after you've learned other insider concepts or jargon is a problem. An name that is instantly comprehended is a real benefit to them. 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 22 May 2010 02:09, Thomas Dalton 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. 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
On May 21, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 22 May 2010 01:54, MZMcBride wrote: >> Rob Lanphier wrote: >>> In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as >>> generally figuring >>> out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at >>> large, it >>> became clear that the name "Flagged Protections" doesn't >>> adequately describe >>> the technology as it looks to readers and editors. It's a tough >>> name to work >>> with. This iteration of the technology is very different from the >>> German >>> implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed >>> configuration. >>> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" >>> whereas this >>> feature actually opens up pages currently protected so that >>> everyone can >>> edit. >> >> Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares. > > 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. > I agree. Feature names ARE important. Unless you just want to call it WP:MEANINGLESSACRONYM, which is truly not helpful. Philippe ___ 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 5:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote: > implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration. > Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this [snip] > - Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no "flagging" in > our proposed deployment) I guess I'm confused, because I see flagging all over this but you're saying there is none? To the best of my understanding: The flags are what distinguishes approved revisions from non-approved revisions and on designated pages controls which revisions are displayed by default to anons. This is mostly the same way that flagged revisions work elsewhere, the difference in functionality is that rather than the flagging-effect being enabled across an entire project or namespace it is controlled through the protection configuration mechanism on a page by page basis. > Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this The protection interface controls and has long a number of things related to the permissions granted to manipulate a page. The same protection interface allows a page to be "move protected" for example, which doesn't do anything related to _editing_ but instead prevents the page from being moved to a new name. Following that mode, this feature enables the protection of the flagging process on pages which users deem require that level of protection— just as there as is the case for the other protective modes. or as described by the proposal on English Wikipedia which was approved by hundreds of contributors: "Flagged protection is a specific use of flagged revisions which provides an alternative to the current page protection feature: instead of disallowing editing for certain users, editing is allowed, but those edits must be flagged before being displayed to non-registered readers by default." I'm also not clear how "Pending Revisions" would actually fit into the operational dialogue of people working on the site: A: "That trouble maker is back again on [[Cheese]]." B: 'Don't worry, that page has move protection and pending revisions.' A: "Oh, if there are revisions pending I should go flag them... hey, there are no new revisions!" B: "I mean the 'pending revisions' protection level, not that there were actually any revisions pending" A: 'You idiot, call it flag-protection like everyone else.' ;) If people want to lay their thumb by playing with the names— I don't much care. But I do want to make sure some horrible desync about the _actual functionality_ hasn't happened, because saying that there is no flagging and no protection are very alarming claims to me. ___ 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 05/21/2010 05:54 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares. > > Most users don't edit. Most users who do edit won't care what the feature is > called. Nobody cares. And I think you're a pretty smart guy who already > realizes this, so I'm curious why there seems to be deliberate > smoke-throwing here. > > Please, focus on the important issues and tell whoever is suggesting that > this is one of them to stop erecting pseudo-hurdles that only further delay > deployment. > If this were going to be delaying deployment, you would have a point. It won't. If I thought it would, I would have opposed it vigorously. 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"
MZMcBride wrote: > Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares. > > Most users don't edit. Most users who do edit won't care what the feature is > called. Nobody cares. And I think you're a pretty smart guy who already > realizes this, so I'm curious why there seems to be deliberate > smoke-throwing here. > > Please, focus on the important issues and tell whoever is suggesting that > this is one of them to stop erecting pseudo-hurdles that only further delay > deployment. You've made some valid points on this subject, but with all due respect, you appear to be tilting at windmills in this instance. The feature's name is a legitimate concern, and I see no attempt to erect any hurdles. (On the contrary, Rob unambiguously noted that time is of the essence.) 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 22 May 2010 01:54, MZMcBride wrote: > Rob Lanphier wrote: >> In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring >> out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at large, it >> became clear that the name "Flagged Protections" doesn't adequately describe >> the technology as it looks to readers and editors. It's a tough name to work >> with. This iteration of the technology is very different from the German >> implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration. >> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this >> feature actually opens up pages currently protected so that everyone can >> edit. > > Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares. 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
Rob Lanphier wrote: > In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring > out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at large, it > became clear that the name "Flagged Protections" doesn't adequately describe > the technology as it looks to readers and editors. It's a tough name to work > with. This iteration of the technology is very different from the German > implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration. > Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this > feature actually opens up pages currently protected so that everyone can > edit. Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares. Most users don't edit. Most users who do edit won't care what the feature is called. Nobody cares. And I think you're a pretty smart guy who already realizes this, so I'm curious why there seems to be deliberate smoke-throwing here. Please, focus on the important issues and tell whoever is suggesting that this is one of them to stop erecting pseudo-hurdles that only further delay deployment. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
