[WikiEN-l] Reliable sources— some of these babies are ugly

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
> Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at 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