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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee