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