[Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"

Mon May 24 11:24:05 UTC 2010

On 05/23/2010 07:56 PM, Alex wrote:
>> I think that fits in nicely with James Alexander's view: we can and
>> should assume that most editors have already checked their work. Not
>> against the minutiae of our rules, but against their own intent, and
>> their understanding of what constitutes an improvement to Wikipedia.
>>   
>> Given that, I think double-check fits in fine, both in a very literal
>> sense and in the colloquial one. I ask people to double-check my work
>> all the time, with the implied first check always being my own.
>>      
> We can assume most, but we cannot assume all. It is the ones that don't
> that we're especially concerned about. So, the revisions that get
> "double checked" are mostly the ones that don't actually need it. The
> intentionally bad edits are only getting a single check.
>    

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. The 
essence of a wiki, both notionally and practically, is the assumption 
that people are generally doing something good. 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. So I think it's fine if the name has a positive connotation.

As a bonus, expectations often drive behaviors; if you act as if people 
are up to something good, they are more likely to get up to something 
good. And the opposite is certainly true as well. So I think a positive 
name isn't a bad thing.

Practically, yes, I agree we can't assume all edits are good; if we 
were, there'd be little point to this project. As I mentioned elsewhere, 
I'd eventually like to see this getting to the point where multiple 
people can express an opinion on an edit. Knowing that 1 person reviewed 
an edit is good; knowing that 5 people did is better.

> And of course, this raises the question, if we're assuming that most
> editors are checking their work and are trying to improve the
> encyclopedia, why do we need to double check their work? We wouldn't
> call the system "Second guess", but that's kind of what this explanation
> sounds like.
>    

For the purposes of naming, I don't think that's an issue. Insiders will 
know that not all edits are perfect, and edits and articles are getting 
continuously checked over.

The main reason to put extra effort into choosing this name is for 
outsiders. I'd wager that most of them still have no idea how this 
works. At this point people have to accept that Wikipedia does somehow 
function, but I doubt they know how or why. That on certain articles we 
will review changes before they go live seems perfectly natural and very 
positive to most non-Wikipedians that I've talked to about this. 
Especially when you frame it in terms of BLP, which is one of the potent 
forces driving the adoption of this.

William