[Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"

[William Pietri]

On 05/23/2010 07:51 PM, David Levy wrote:
> William Pietri wrote:
>
>    
>> I think insiders will adjust to any name we choose, as some of our
>> existing names attest. So I think as long as the name isn't hideous or
>> actively misleading, then my main criterion is how it comes across to
>> novices. For them, I'd suspect most will take "double check" as it's
>> used colloquially,
>>      
> My understanding is that we seek to avoid colloquialisms, which are
> particularly difficult for non-native English speakers to comprehend.
>    

In theory, certainly. In practice, I have a hard time believing that 
non-native speakers would struggle with a name "Double Check" more than 
they'd struggle with any of the other names.


> And honestly, if I were not already familiar with the process in
> question, I would interpret "Double Check" to mean "checked twice
> after submission" (and I'm a native English speaker and Wikipedian
> since 2005).  Someone unfamiliar with our existing processes might
> assume that everything is routinely checked once by an outside party
> (and this is an additional check).
>
> Such potential for misunderstanding is non-trivial, as this feature's
> deployment is likely to generate significant mainstream media
> coverage.
>    

I think that any name we choose is going to leave a lot of people 
confused about what's going on, especially if they sit their and 
ruminate on it. The most we can ask of a name is that it gives them a 
vague sense of what's going on, and doesn't cause too much confusion as 
they read further.


>> but if some do get the notion that it's checked twice by others rather than
>> once, I see little harm done.
>>      
> If the general public is led to believe that we're instituting a
> second check because an existing check isn't working (as evidenced by
> the disturbing edits already widely reported), this will be quite
> injurious to Wikipedia's reputation.
>    

I know that these names have been worked over extensively by Jay and 
Moka, who have a lot of experience dealing with reporters and the 
general public. They were pretty happy with the two names that were part 
of the initial proposal from Rob, so I am willing to trust their 
professional judgment as far as reaction from the press and the person 
on the street. More, in fact, than I trust my own, as I know that I'm 
tainted by long years as a programmer and as a participant here and in 
Ward's wiki.

William