Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)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