Awesome. I've met Ryan, this is great to hear.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Tomasz Finc wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'm very excited to welcome Ryan Kaldari to the Wikimedia Foundation as the
> Front End developer for fundraising. Ryan joins us from MTV Networks:
> Country Music Television, whe
Greetings,
I'm very excited to welcome Ryan Kaldari to the Wikimedia Foundation as the
Front End developer for fundraising. Ryan joins us from MTV Networks: Country
Music Television, where he worked as a web developer responsible for several
integration and architecture projects. Previous to th
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
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 wi
Earlier:
> If Mediawiki had been named Mediawiki Engine, and Wikimedia had been named
> Wikimedia Organization, part of the current confusion for outsiders would
> already have gone.
> They may not understand from the name what kind of engine, of what kind of
> organization, but they will
I don't believe we should aim at a completely meaningless name out of
concern that some people may not get the finer details of what we try to
convey.
If we make that a rule for all features yet to be named we will again have
made our world a bit more impenetrable.
Remember how our 100+ acronyms
Hi Everyone -
Our next strategic planning office hours will be: 04:00-05:00 UTC,
Wednesday, 26 May. Local timezones can be checked at
http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010&month=5&day=26&hour=04&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
As always, you can access the chat by going to
https://webcha
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 sup
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 alo
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 a
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
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 rea
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
>
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 up
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 an
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
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 th
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 Medi
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 transla
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
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
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
> minute
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
>> novic
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 wilder
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 im
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 be
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
woul
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 "ges
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
