[WikiEN-l] Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

[Delirium]

Michael Snow wrote:

>There seem to be a lot of terms being used lately for rhetorical effect 
>without much attention paid to what they really mean. To "go over the 
>head" of someone implies that you bypass normal channels. In many cases, 
>including for example Jack Thompson, they aren't bypassing the editors, 
>they actually tried dealing with the editors and that didn't solve the 
>problem.
>
So isn't that "going over the heads" of editors then?  They tried 
dealing through the normal channels, and it didn't come out to their 
liking, so they decided to change tack and go over the editors' heads 
instead, getting the Foundation to do something about it.

>Also, "top-down" is a management style - though you would never know 
>that from Wikipedia, where it redirects to an article about software 
>design, which I trust is not what you were referring to. In management 
>terms, a top-down system is one where the executives make all the key 
>decisions themselves, plan how the work will be done, and give 
>assignments to their subordinates, who have little discretion or input 
>in the work they do. If anyone can tell me when they were given an 
>assignment on Wikipedia in which they lacked input or discretion, I'd be 
>happy to hear about it.
>  
>
Isn't a directive from the front office saying "nobody can edit this 
page" a top-down directive?  How else would you describe it?  Nobody is 
saying that Wikipedia *as a whole* operates in a top-down manner, just 
that some cases are being dealt with in a top-down manner.

I can see why it's rhetorically convenient to use weasel words to 
describe the situation, but I don't see why plain English is inappropriate.

-Mark