Hi everyone,
After much debate, we've settled on a name for the English Wikipedia
implementation of FlaggedRevs: "Pending Changes". This is a slight
variation on one of the finalists ("Pending Revisions") which has the
benefit of using the less jargony term "changes" instead of "revisions".
The
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 lo
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 nega
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.
>
> Willia
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 figur
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 mai
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. T
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
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
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
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
Pending Revisions conveys that publication is deferred, but not for what
reason.
Based on only the name it leaves a new editor guessing: maybe there is a
server delay and the matter will resolve itself in next twenty minutes?
Double Check or Revision Review tells clearly there is human interv
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
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"
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 in
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 f
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
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 artic
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/lis
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
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 ti
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
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 p
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 ave
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
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
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 u
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 infla
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'l
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
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
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" w
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 ev
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
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 thi
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
>>> be
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 pr
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
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 d
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
>
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 ed
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
66 matches
Mail list logo
