[Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"

[Ziko van Dijk]

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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande