On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David Levy <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
Hm. Accctttuualllllyyyyyy.... Why not something that _must_ be explained? Call it "Garblesmook", for example. (or better, import a word from some obscure semi-dead language... Does anyone have a suggestion of an especially fitting word? Perhaps something Hawaiian?) The big danger of using something with an intuitive meaning is that you get the intuitive understanding. We _KNOW_ that the intuitive understanding of this feature is a misunderstanding. > "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. I think that if were to ask some random person with a basic laymen knowledge of what a new feature of Wikipedia called "revision review" did and what benefits and problems it would have, I'd get results which were largely unmatched with the reality of it. (Not that I think that any word is good) [responding to the inner message] >> 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. Thats a false choice. We could use a name which expresses _nothing_ about what is going on, thus making it clear that you can't figure it out simply from the name. Just a thought. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
