[Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

[Amir E. Aharoni]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 20:49, Tim Landscheidt <tim at tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:
> "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>>> Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not
>>> transparant about it.
>
>> Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as
>> important to be nice. "Filter log" is just as correct and transparent
>> as "abuse log", but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of
>> abuse.
>
> "Filter" in current German discussions /can/ allude to the
> semi-governmental content filters deployed by most major
> German ISPs to deny users access to child pornography web-
> sites.
>
>  So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six
> billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer
> users who are curious enough to just click on that link to
> find out what's behind it?

With crowdsourcing, finding the right word for six billion people is
not so hard. The admins of every language edition can find a suitable
word for their edition.

Most importantly, don't forget that you know what the abuse log is and
you know that it's harmless, but newbies don't know it. Many newbies
got really scared when they saw Windows 95's error messages about
applications that performed "illegal" actions. (I actually saw it
myself.)

I gave several classes of basic Wikipedia editing to groups of
newbies. The misunderstandings of the technical terms - and they do
encounter these technical terms - are most unexpected.

-- 
אמיר אלישע אהרוני
Amir Elisha Aharoni

http://aharoni.wordpress.com

"We're living in pieces,
 I want to live in peace." - T. Moore