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

[Michael Snow]

Delirium wrote:

>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?
>
Why does it need to be described in the first place? For rhetorical 
purposes, as is clear by the choice of description you're applying.

>  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.
>  
>
Implicit in much of the rhetoric is the notion that the "top-down" 
management will spread and change the way Wikipedia as a whole operates. 
If you're purely concerned about the existing cases, then how do you 
think they should be approached?

>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.
>
I've already pointed out why these descriptions are rhetorical in 
character. Rhetoric, as a virtually inherent part of its nature, is not 
plain English. We're all using rhetoric here, you and me both, and the 
rest of the people in this discussion as well.

--Michael Snow