[Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"

[David Levy]

William Pietri wrote:

> Sorry if I was unclear. I was speaking about the naming issue. I think
> it's ok if our name for this generally assumes the happy case.

I disagree.  I think that it should be as clear as possible that this
process exists to counter inappropriate edits, not as an Orwellian
measure intended to be used indiscriminately throughout the
encyclopedia (because we want to "double check" good edits before
allowing them to attain normal status).

I understand what you mean (we assume that most edits will be good
even in a case in which a relatively small number of bad edits renders
this feature necessary), but it's unrealistic to expect that
complicated concept to come across.  We seek a name that requires as
little elaboration as possible.

> The essence of a wiki, both notionally and practically, is the
> assumption that people are generally doing something good.

Leaving the incorrect impression that we intend to routinely "double
check" edits in this manner conveys something very different.

> Protection, which focuses on the trouble a few bad actors can cause,
> is a big step away from that notion. Flagged Protection moves back
> toward the original wiki spirit.

But it still exists for the purpose of countering inappropriate edits.
 I see no reason to pretend otherwise.  In fact, given the negative
publicity that some such edits have caused, I view this as extremely
important to convey.  Downplaying the feature as a reaction to
something "happy" strikes me as precisely the wrong approach.

> So I think it's fine if the name has a positive connotation.

And that connotation should be "we're countering inappropriate edits,"
not "we assume that everything's okay, but we'll humor the concerns."

Of course, I'm not proposing that we use a term like "Vandal Buster."
I'm saying that the name itself should imply nothing about the edits'
quality.

"Revision Review" is perfectly neutral (and much clearer than "Double
Check," which has inapplicable connotations and doesn't even specify
what's being "checked") and thus far has generated more support than
anything else has.

> > 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.

I've already noted that if I didn't possess prior knowledge of the
feature's nature, the name "Double Check" would confuse *me* (a native
English speaker).  You expect non-native English speakers to grasp a
"colloquial" usage (and see no advantage in a name composed of words
whose dictionary meanings accurately describe the intended concept)?

> 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.

The purpose of this request is to select the best (i.e. most
informative and least confusing) name possible.

> 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.

Rob has explicitly asked us to comment on these names and set up a
forum in which to do so (and propose alternatives).  You've vigorously
defended the name drawing the most opposition and declined to comment
on the name drawing the most support, and that's fine.  But please
don't suggest that we're wasting our time by doing what Rob asked of
us.

David Levy