[WikiEN-l] One-sentence explanation of pending changes

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I do have a fear that reporters, who are embedded in institutions with
> complicated review flows, will bring a lot of baggage to interpreting
> this, and so will have notions and potential misunderstandings that are
> different than the ones we've encountered so far. So if you have a
> chance before the big push to run your soundbite through a few friendly
> journalists and see what comes out again, that couldn't hurt.

This is why the "review" language has been discouraged by many people.
It doesn't just have a loaded meaning for journalists.   It implies a
gatekeeper functionality that simply does not exist in this process.

I'd rather we just omit the step in between. People will guess,
they'll guess wrong. But it will be easier to correct those incorrect
guesses if we don't have output apparently claiming them to be
correct.


On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> d) it only applies BLP articles

Can you identify the origin of this belief?  It's not correct.  If
there is some page still saying/implying this, we need to go fix it.