On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, jayen466@yahoo.com writes:
Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then? That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read the draft, isn't it?
People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years ago there was a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a proposal to ban all photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was no such proposal.
This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of point ny point rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke based around the Brady Bunch. http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same constituents as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would any one think that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those currently voting?