I want to clarify the rationale around Lock. I agree with you that locking a thread is a harsh and un-wiki thing to do.
However -- currently in Flow, that harsh and un-wiki feature has already existed for a while. It's been called Close. We are not about to create a new, harsh moderation tool. We are simply calling the existing moderation tool by a more appropriate name, given the functionality that it offers.
Right now, Close does the following: * Turns the topic titlebar white * Adds an icon and a bold line of text: This topic was closed by User name * Adds a summary in the topic titlebar * Removes the reply entry field * Removes the Reply link on posts (actually, it doesn't, but if you try to reply, it doesn't work) * Until the last release a couple weeks ago, it also collapsed the discussion by default, and you had to click on the topic titlebar in order to see the posts.
We're starting to review all of the existing moderation tools on Flow. As part of that review, I talked to the team about Close. I think that action is too harsh and un-wiki -- actually locking down all conversation and removing the posts from view -- and it doesn't necessarily match up with what the wiki communities mean when they close a discussion.
The two elements of the current Close feature that I think don't fit are collapsing the posts by default (which we've just changed), and locking the thread down so nobody can reply. We talked in a team meeting about removing that restriction. The team said, correctly, that if we remove that restriction, then the "Close" feature doesn't really do anything except change the color of the titlebar. It would basically be the same feature as Summarize, with a white header.
So that means we need to rethink Close, and make it a more sophisticated tool that aligns better with how people currently close discussions.
But if we're redoing moderation actions, then I think Hide is currently in worse shape than Close. So we're going to be working on Hide next, and you'll see more on that very soon. While we're doing that -- because we know that Close is misleading -- we're going to do a simple text change, and rename that function Lock, so that people understand what it currently does.
I don't think Lock is going to be long for this world; it's a temporary measure until we redo Close. So Lock isn't a harsh new thing; it's just a more accurate description of the feature that currently exists.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
i apparently have mail client issues so i can't reply properly ...
S Page, yes I agree that protect should be more user friendly -- i think it should also not let anyone edit at all -- page is /protected/ . but what should be the process for debating a past consensus ? anyone can do this, right now? maybe we actually should DO lock ...
i mentally come back to the 'message types' concept where a folk can say 'this message formally declares a reached consencus' which puts warnings as appropriate - with (reasonably subtle) means to challenge it... similarly to 'this message solves the problem'... show it in topic subtitle: '5 comments, 1 solution', '5 comments and consencus' ... i think people should be able to define such message types on-wiki (and what they do) in a flexible way without locking down a topic completely but with possibly changing its appearance
'i locked your topic' sounds like a much much more horrid thing than 'i think your topic has a new msg about reached consencus' or 'i think your topic has an msg that solves the problem'... because 'locked' is too generic and puts the whoever-locked-the-topic into a non-collaborative position, but a position of power, which is imo against wiki philosophy...
svetlana
EE mailing list EE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee