On 28 September 2010 23:37, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The
Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by
those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller
for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make
everyone happy sometimes.
"Difficult discussion" seems like an appropriate Freudian slip, though
it's probably fairer to thank Jimbo for that.
Yes, it's well established that decisions aren't based on votes, which
is why there's been such a hostile reaction to the forcing of a
majority poll. And remember this isn't about "quashing" pending
changes, it's about whether it should be left enabled in its current
state. Many very experienced users, including those who were heavily
involved in the trial and support pending changes, have raised serious
concerns about the usability and effectiveness. There must be some
validity to those, or why is the Foundation ploughing more time and
resources into further development?
Of course one problem with a strictly numerical poll like this, is
that those concerns carry as much weight as a plain "keep" vote with
Pete / the wub