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 z@mzmcbride.com:
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