On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM, William Pietri <will...@scissor.com> wrote: > On 06/14/2010 06:46 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: >> On 15/06/2010, MuZemike<muzem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Have there been any other media outlets, blogs, etc. who see Pending >>> > Changes as a "loosening of controls"? I haven't; perhaps I've been >>> > hanging around with the community too much who say it will be more >>> > restrictive than before:) >> To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone knows, it will probably >> depend on what policies are built around it. >> > > I agree completely that the outcome is really up to the community. But > personally, it's my hope that this will open things up. Certainly the > articles selected for initial trial of this represent an opening, in > that all the users who could edit before still can, and the ones that > couldn't can now easily propose edits, ones that are likely to be accepted.
People should really avoid the poisonous "propose" language. An edit is an edit. An act in completion by itself. For it to not stick it must be _reverted_, another act— not something passive. Perhaps it might sit unflagged for some time... but even in the worst case someone with the authority will eventually want their own changes to be displayed and at that point they must choose: revert or accept. Words matter, at least sometimes, and I fear "propose" presents problems both for the motivation of new users to contribute and in the personal restraint experienced users must display by avoiding the trap of OWNing articles. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
