On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gryllida, > > As I said on the Arbcom case page, RfCs result in changes to Wikipedia on a > regular basis despite having a small numbers of participants in each RfC, > and current English Wikipedia policy does not require a minimum number of > participants beyond what is necessary to establish consensus. Furthermore, > any assertion that the MV RfC was invalid because of its advertising or > because it had too few participants would open up countless RfCs to being > challenged for the same reason. I believe that the form of the MediaViewer > RfC and participation in it were sufficient to establish a legitimate > consensus. > > I am still thinking through the effects that this situation has on the > WMF-community relationship. I'm pretty discouraged, and I know others are > too. > > Pine > > The common practice is that the wider the effect of the change called for in an RfC, the larger and more representative the group of participants must be for the result to be binding. So for something like MediaViewer, the pool of people responding should be quite large. In this case, it wasn't. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
