It is EXTREMELY important to use proper expressions. Otherwise you will create confusion and even scare people away.
When I helped preparing the introduction of "flagged revisions" on Dutch Wikipedia I came up with "marked versions". Above all, it's versions we are talking about, not "revisions" which get a "flag". A flag is for me something you put on something that is notable, but it is our goal that the marked versions are the normal thing. So the procedure is: A sighter is sighting a new version of an article, and after sighting he is putting a mark saying "this version is sighted". Only versions marked as "sighted" are shown to our readers. Kind regards Ziko 2010/5/22 MZMcBride <[email protected]>: > David Levy wrote: >> The feature's name is a legitimate concern, and I see no attempt to >> erect any hurdles. (On the contrary, Rob unambiguously noted that >> time is of the essence.) > > No, it really isn't a legitimate concern. It wasn't a legitimate concern > when the "AbuseFilter" was enabled and every user had a public "abuse log". > And with that feature came the ability to tag edits. We now mark edits with > generally inflammatory remarks that are impossible to have removed. Naming > wasn't a concern when file description pages were all prefixed with > "Image:". It wasn't a concern when RevDelete was enabled (first for > oversighters, then for everyone else). RevDelete doesn't apply to just > revisions, and the user rights associated with it could not have been more > confusingly named if someone had tried deliberately. > > To hear that feature naming has suddenly become an issue sounds like > bullshit to me. The worst that happens? A few power-users confuse their > terminology. And Jay Walsh gets a headache trying to explain this mess in a > press release. God forbid. If anything, using consistent terminology that > has been used previously in blog posts and press releases would be better > than inventing an entirely new and foreign term. > > Please, don't be fooled by the "it'll just be another X days when Y happens > and then we'll be good to go!" Time and again, Wikimedia has used this > tactic with this exact project. If I were a betting man, I'd say the next > "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get > distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'll > see you in 2011. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
