On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So I think
it's fine if the name has a positive connotation.
And that connotation should be "we're countering inappropriate edits,"
not "we assume that everything's okay, but we'll humor the concerns."
Of course, I'm not proposing that we use a term like "Vandal Buster."
I'm saying that the name itself should imply nothing about the edits'
quality.
Hm. Accctttuualllllyyyyyy....
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.