Hello, On Bugzilla I reported my observations about changes in FlaggedRevs extension: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23615
I am unhappy that you attempting to enable FlaggedRevs on en.wiki, you forget about other projects.
Regards, Daniel aka Leinad
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:22:19 +0200, "Daniel ~ Leinad" danny.leinad@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, On Bugzilla I reported my observations about changes in FlaggedRevs extension: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23615
I am unhappy that you attempting to enable FlaggedRevs on en.wiki, you forget about other projects.
Regards, Daniel aka Leinad
I thought it is up to the community how the interface is translated into Polish.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:50:32 +0200, "Daniel ~ Leinad" danny.leinad@gmail.com wrote:
I thought it is up to the community how the interface is translated
into
Polish.
It is not problem in translation to one language. There is problem in source language. All translations should have the same sense as in source language.
Leinad
No, this is up to you. In Russian Wikipedia, we had a vote how the status of the patroller should be called. (Accidentally, my suggestion has been accepted).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:02 AM, putevod putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:50:32 +0200, "Daniel ~ Leinad" danny.leinad@gmail.com wrote:
I thought it is up to the community how the interface is translated
into
Polish.
It is not problem in translation to one language. There is problem in source language. All translations should have the same sense as in source language.
Leinad
No, this is up to you. In Russian Wikipedia, we had a vote how the status of the patroller should be called. (Accidentally, my suggestion has been accepted).
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
All aspects of the interface are indeed configurable, like you said. And this is useful when projects want to tweak the wording or add additional information. They should not be used to illustrate different concepts across the different languages though.
And as Daniel has pointed out, there is a difference between the meaning of "sighted" and "checked" or "review" and "approved." These differences may be subtle, but they do matter. And it should not fall on the communities to "fix" translations that have worked just fine for quite awhile now. When you change the meaning of an English message in MediaWiki, you affect all other supported languages as well. This is a regression in FlaggedRevs.
-Chad
On 05/21/2010 07:16 AM, Chad wrote:
All aspects of the interface are indeed configurable, like you said. And this is useful when projects want to tweak the wording or add additional information. They should not be used to illustrate different concepts across the different languages though.
And as Daniel has pointed out, there is a difference between the meaning of "sighted" and "checked" or "review" and "approved." These differences may be subtle, but they do matter. And it should not fall on the communities to "fix" translations that have worked just fine for quite awhile now. When you change the meaning of an English message in MediaWiki, you affect all other supported languages as well. This is a regression in FlaggedRevs.
We're very aware of the power of names. For those who have been following my updates or the status of tasks in Tracker, you may have noticed that a text and naming task has been in progress for weeks. That's because good names are hard, and we really want to get them right. I'm not really involved in that, so perhaps Howie or RobLa can speak more directly to recent action there.
On the other hand, I think for FlaggedRevs the implied link between languages is weaker than a lot of other bits of MediaWiki. The FlaggedRevs extension is extremely configurable, and on top of the technological model the social model could plausibly vary quite a bit as well. Just to keep them straight, we've been calling the technology FlaggedRevs, and the English Wikipedia use of that tool Flagged Protection, because the English Wikipedia use is pretty different.
Daniel is definitely right that we hadn't been thinking about the effect of our localization on other projects. Internally, we've been thinking of ourselves as localizing the German version, which is the leading use and the one we're most familiar with. We had been localizing the English strings to the planned English Wikipedia use, without considering their role as a default translation source for other, different uses of the extension.
I'll certainly take this back to the team and see if we can come up with ideas to resolve the conflict, but if anybody has ways we could solve this problem, I'd love suggestions.
William
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
On the other hand, I think for FlaggedRevs the implied link between languages is weaker than a lot of other bits of MediaWiki. The FlaggedRevs extension is extremely configurable, and on top of the technological model the social model could plausibly vary quite a bit as well. Just to keep them straight, we've been calling the technology FlaggedRevs, and the English Wikipedia use of that tool Flagged Protection, because the English Wikipedia use is pretty different.
There are two things wrong here.
The first is attempting to reuse messages for different purposes. If the workflow and ideas behind the UI are different, then there need to be different messages, not changing of ones that work just fine and make plenty of sense to the thousands already using them.
I'm aware of the distinction between FlaggedRevs and Flagged Protection, but it leads to the second problem. If the two proposals are so vastly different and their UIs different enough to cause issues with people already using it: why was it not done as a new extension entirely? Rather than trying to turn FR into the one-size-fits-all reviewing tool, it seems to me that we should've started a second extension. Of course it's too late to turn back now.
Daniel is definitely right that we hadn't been thinking about the effect of our localization on other projects. Internally, we've been thinking of ourselves as localizing the German version, which is the leading use and the one we're most familiar with. We had been localizing the English strings to the planned English Wikipedia use, without considering their role as a default translation source for other, different uses of the extension.
I'll certainly take this back to the team and see if we can come up with ideas to resolve the conflict, but if anybody has ways we could solve this problem, I'd love suggestions.
William
Short of forking the Enwiki changes to its own extension (which isn't feasible at this point, I'll be the first to admit), I would suggest trying to segregate the two as much as humanly possible. The UIs and workflow for what the English Wikipedia wants FlaggedRevs to do and what it's been doing on other wikis for years are vastly different, and trying to reuse aspects of one in the other (especially messages!) will just confuse people already happily using FR.
-Chad
On 05/21/2010 08:51 AM, Chad wrote:
There are two things wrong here.
The first is attempting to reuse messages for different purposes. If the workflow and ideas behind the UI are different, then there need to be different messages, not changing of ones that work just fine and make plenty of sense to the thousands already using them.
Agreed. Are other people using the English messages other than as a translation source?
I'm aware of the distinction between FlaggedRevs and Flagged Protection, but it leads to the second problem. If the two proposals are so vastly different and their UIs different enough to cause issues with people already using it: why was it not done as a new extension entirely? Rather than trying to turn FR into the one-size-fits-all reviewing tool, it seems to me that we should've started a second extension. Of course it's too late to turn back now.
I wasn't around for a lot of the history, but from what I know all of the decisions made at the time were reasonable. Straying for a moment into the always risky if-I-knew-then-what-I-know-now mode, I think we would have been better off building a much less flexible extension to begin with, one more targeted to the initial actual use. For Flagged Protection, though, my understanding is that adding further configurability to FlaggedRevs was the most efficient choice.
Regardless, you're right that we can't change history, and that any major refactoring of the code should wait until after we launch. I'll make sure we talk about this in the post-launch retrospective, though.
Short of forking the Enwiki changes to its own extension (which isn't feasible at this point, I'll be the first to admit), I would suggest trying to segregate the two as much as humanly possible. The UIs and workflow for what the English Wikipedia wants FlaggedRevs to do and what it's been doing on other wikis for years are vastly different, and trying to reuse aspects of one in the other (especially messages!) will just confuse people already happily using FR.
Yep, agreed. We'll discuss this next we meet and see if we can come up with anything. Sounds like we'll be in the situation of having two sets of English strings: one as the generic translation source and one for use on the English Wikipedia. Is anybody aware of a precedent for that?
William
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
We're very aware of the power of names. For those who have been following my updates or the status of tasks in Tracker, you may have noticed that a text and naming task has been in progress for weeks. That's because good names are hard, and we really want to get them right. I'm not really involved in that, so perhaps Howie or RobLa can speak more directly to recent action there.
A much clearer explanation of the plan is on my list of things to do in the very near future (this afternoon if I'm lucky, more realistically by 6pm PDT on Monday).
The strategy for dealing with the strings under the hood is a good conversation to have on wikitech-l, I think. Any objection to moving the conversation there?
Rob
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.comwrote:
We're very aware of the power of names. For those who have been following my updates or the status of tasks in Tracker, you may have noticed that a text and naming task has been in progress for weeks. That's because good names are hard, and we really want to get them right. I'm not really involved in that, so perhaps Howie or RobLa can speak more directly to recent action there.
A much clearer explanation of the plan is on my list of things to do in the very near future (this afternoon if I'm lucky, more realistically by 6pm PDT on Monday).
The strategy for dealing with the strings under the hood is a good conversation to have on wikitech-l, I think. Any objection to moving the conversation there?
Oops, I forgot to mention, I'm planning on putting much of this documentation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/TerminologyThat's for those of you who don't want to join wikitech-l, but still want to be part of the conversation.
Rob
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org