[Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

[????]

On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jayen466 at 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?