Don't consider the lack of direct challenge to you as a sign of
agreement or endoresement of the methodology. It could very well be
that folks have tuned out the more farcical arguments, like how
announcing a poll about Chinese language issues to Chinese Wikipedians
is not necessary.
And regarding your previous comment...
On 9/6/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
4) The lack of announcement was partially intentional.
That pretty well sums it up.
In most places, that would be called vote rigging.
But as Jimbo said, that's why binding votes are frowned upon.
I felt that it
was most fair to send a message to wikipedia-l, and
mailing list, and then to individual Cantonese-speaking users.
Personal differences aside, the organizer of a
vote, as an implicit
"overseer," should show restraint in terms of commenting on individual
votes and as a result, influencing the votes on the page.
I'm not sure how comments on votes could influence them. Other than
those directed towards Jeromy~Yuyu, my comments were in a spirit of
disambiguation rather than challenging the reasoning behind votes, as
some people appeared to think we were talking about writing a
Baihuawen Wikipedia in Traditional Chinese and then calling it
"Cantonese Wikipedia", rather than writing a YutYuhBakWaMaan Wikipedia
as was the idea.
One reason the final (sixth) GNAA VfD was
accepted after several
controversial rounds of voting was because of how professionally the
vote was administered. We should learn from that.
And by "we", you mean "Node", right?
Wikipedia-l mailing list