- "Double Check" - this was a late
entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature
will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad
community).
I like this one. With this, there would be "double checked" edits,
that is edits that were approved or rejected.
Emily
On May 21, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Hi everyone,
As William alluded to, a bunch of us have been studying the user
interface
for Flagged Protections and figuring out how to make it more
intuitive.
In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally
figuring
out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at
large, it
became clear that the name "Flagged Protections" doesn't adequately
describe
the technology as it looks to readers and editors. It's a tough name
to work
with. This iteration of the technology is very different from the
German
implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed
configuration.
Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas
this
feature actually opens up pages currently protected so that everyone
can
edit.
So, we would like to make a change to the name of the "Flagged
Protections"
feature prior to deploying it to
en.wikipedia.org. Under the hood,
we would
still be using the "FlaggedRevs" extension (no change there), but
the name
that we talk about in the user-visible portions of the site and
documentation would be something new.
Here were some criteria we're using to find a name:
- Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no
"flagging" in
our proposed deployment)
- Terminology should be consistent with terms we want to use in
the user
interface
- Must not make too strong of a statement of quality/consensus or
terms
that make us out as publishers approving content from the
mountaintop
- Should not imply we're creating an elite new classes of users
- Should not convey a strong sense of restriction. The feature, as
proposed for the trial [1], is less restrictive than semi-protection
- Should not be too geeky/too technical/too jargony
- Should not be too slick/too cutesy. We're not doing this in the
name of
creating glossy brochures with pictures of a conference room full
of people
in formal business attire nodding with approval at a projection of
a pie
chart - we just want a name that won't be confusing.
It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged
Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made
the cut:
- "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what
everyone
will see in many parts of the user interface, and what it will be
used for
(i.e. providing a queue of pending revisions)
- "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature
will be
used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad
community).
A protracted debate on the name will likely delay the eventual
launch on the
feature, so we're hoping we can have a quick, respectful discussion
on the
merits of the different proposals so that we can make the change
quickly and
move on. We really need to have a name fully locked down no later than
Friday, May 28. Please let us know your thoughts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolle…
We're in the process of working on a lot of terminology tweaks in
the user
interface in anticipation of the launch. If you're interested in
that detail
work, I'll post more information about that on wikitech-l (hopefully
by
end-of-day Monday), as well as on the talk page above.
Rob
[1] - See the proposed configuration for trial phase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolle…
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l