Delirium wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
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.
How can we talk about things on a mailing list of we aren't allowed to
use words and phrases?
Nobody's denying you the ability to use words and phrases. I'm pointing
out that these words and phrases are being used as rhetoric, and that
insisting other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric is
counterproductive.
I'm interested in discussing the class of cases
where the front
office gives a directive relating to an article, e.g. "do not
unprotect this article"; or "rewrite this article from scratch with no
pedophiles as authors"; or some other such directive. A shorthand way
of referring to such cases, which captures the essence of the matter
being disputed, is "top-down directive".
If you really prefer, I could say something like, "non-optional
suggestions resulting from Wikimedia Foundation activity", but that
seems a bit silly. Do you have a better term you'd prefer?
To my reading, "directive from the Wikimedia Foundation" seems to
capture the entirety of that phrase. Again, calling it "top-down" is
pure rhetoric.
--Michael Snow