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
On 3/13/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
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.
1) He never insisted that other people should agree to and adopt your rhetoric. 2) You're misusing the word rhetoric. 3) Contrary to your above claim, Jimbo wrote "Current policy does not let anyone go "over the head" of editors and the Wikimedia Foundation does not deal with them in a "top-down manner"." That is, he flatly denied Delirium's words.
The only thing that Delirium has been insisting on is his right to use that language himself -- not that others have to agree lock, stock and barrel to it.