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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
