stevertigo wrote:
Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But every opinion can be put in a measured manner: that is not, generally, our way either, but I think the advantages are apparent of _not_ using language like this: "By rush-imposing his views and decisions on people who are not out of the debate yet, he is browbeating their inner self, ignoring their beliefs and opinions, discarding the value of the Other". This is classic WP-internal rhetoric, isn't it? It is designed to press buttons with those who, although notionally subscribing to "WP isn't a democracy", basically believe there is "no consensus that doesn't include me". It is quite possible to write "there were plenty who disagreed", without covering in batter, frying in lard, sprinkling with onion rings and cheese, placing under the grill. and serving with sparklers and a side-salad of old grievances.
Keep in mind statements like those were made in the context of an action by Jimbo, wherein the issue of "consensus" was moot, because there was none.
The trend towards non-profit corporate culture has had a natural but unpleasant button-down effect. (And not to mention an inane corporate jargon effect - "assets" and "identity?")
Well, I was keeping various things in mind. In our very own inane jargon, WP:BOLD is qualified by "Often it is easier to see that something is not right rather than to know exactly what /would/ be right", which is something of a plea for measured responses, and WP:BRD with "In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on [...]". I actually don't see that the issue under discussion is a new type of issue. There is a new type of context, which is what I hoped to be addressing.
Charles