A few years ago, when ordered by a judge to remove Internet Explorer from the Windows operating system, Microsoft offered as one option an operating system that wouldn’t work. I called this “compliance with a raised middle finger.”

Now, ordered by the European Union to sell a version of Windows with Media Player removed, Microsoft proposed to name the OS “Windows XP Reduced Media Edition,” another example of the company’s tendency to give the finger to government whenever the mood strikes. (This latest insult-the-judge move is even more puzzling given that the EU didn’t tell our favorite monopolist to sell the “reduced” version at a lower price, which means that PC makers are hardly likely to opt for a version that has less software at the same price.)

Anyway, Microsoft agreed to rename (eWeek) the non-Media Player version after the EU protested. But this leaves open the issue of what the actual name should be.

The title of this posting offers one suggestion. Here are some other possibilities, all showing due appreciation for Microsoft’s rare combination of arrogance, paranoia and predatory skill.
Windows Government Censored Version
Windows We Should Be Able to Bundle A Roast Beef Sandwich With the OS If We Want To Edition
Windows Don’t Blame Us For Your Security Problems Edition
Windows Until We Become Part of Your Taxes Edition

You get the general idea. But Microsoft needs your ideas, too. Post them below.

Let’s work together to assist a poor helpless giant.

UPDATE: As usual, someone has thought about this before I did. See this funny posting by Rex Hammock.

I gave a talk last week to the Knight Ridder editorial page editors, who assemble periodically to have a “whither the editorial pages” confab. My role was provocateur. First, I gave them my standard schtick on how journalism is shifting from the lecture mode to something between a conversation and a seminar. Then I got to the recommendations, which went roughly this way:

Newspapers, with few exceptions, are strangely oblivious to the huge opportunity in citizen journalism. More than almost any other entities, they could be taking advantage of their innate advantages. Yet they are not.

Yes, newspapers have been losing circulation and power, but they retain a surprisingly deep reservoir of credibility and authority in their communities. The reservoir must be replenished, and it is the citizens who — given the opportunity — will be able, and perhaps glad, to help.

The key is in having the conversation with the community and, even more, helping community members have a conversation among themselves. Newspapers, given their positions, can be at the center of this conversation — not the object of it in most cases, but the enabler and, to some extent, agenda-setter. (The Greensboro (North Carolina) News & Record is a leader in this arena already, and has plans to move much farther.)

What is the one place in most newspapers where the conversation has already begun? The editorial page, of course. Think about it. What are letters to the editor if not a stab at a conversation? They’re not very effective, because a) they are rarely as timely as they might be even in an age of faxes and e-mail; b) the conversation isn’t threaded so people can refer instantly to what inspired the letter; and c) most newspapers get more letters than they can possibly print, especially on topics that generate the most passion.

Editorial pages should take that thumbnail of a conversation and blow it up into the real thing. The way they can do it is, over time, to invert the basic function of the editorial pages.

In other words, turn the printed page into a guide to and “greatest hits” from the community conversation.

The bulk of the debates and discussions will take place online and, crucially, also in public forums where newspaper people serve as moderators but not lecturers. Help frame the debate, not force it. Then use the print pages to reflect and amplify the conversation.

There are plenty of specific ways to approach something like this. Some require more resources than others. I’d suggest, for starters:
Editorial page weblogs. Discuss upcoming topics among the staff and welcome reader comments.
Offer user-moderated posting and comment systems. Moderation by the newspapers — that is, removing obscene or illegal postings or trolls — will be necessary.
Use comments and community postings as letters to the editor. Better, publish greatest-hits threads of the best conversations, not isolated letters referring back to stories and editorials that no one remembers clearly. Provide context.
Publish the best reader-written essays in the paper. Let readers decide which are best. (Sometimes you will disagree with the readers and have a good reason for not publishing a certain piece; explain why you made that decision.)
Over time, think audio and video for commentaries.
To ensure that people in poorer neighborhoods can be part of this conversation, buy some computers and install them in community centers, churches and other places where people gather. Encourage the people who’ll take care of them to ensure that the computers are used only for this community purpose, not for random surfing.

Many editorial pages at smaller newspapers couldn’t afford this, in staff time or financially. But no editorial page is too resource-hungry to be unable to start a blog (some are already doing it). Small beginnings can lead to great things.

Small or large, newspapers can ask for help from the community. This should be a collaborative endeavor. There are people in the community who will be happy — honored — to serve as moderators, to help police the site and keep it a place where people respect each other’s views and ideas.

If editorial pages do something like this, they’ll restore some of the luster they’ve lost over the past few decades (edit pages aren’t exactly the most exciting places in most papers). And they’ll show the rest of the newspaper how it can be done. The conversation should include the entire paper, not just the edit page, after all.

I truly believe that this is a golden opportunity for newspapers. Whether they’ll seize it is another issue