On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
>> Ignoring a wide community
>> consensus is *always* a mistake.
> It is.  I never advocated otherwise.
> That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let
> alone a consensus of the actually impacted community.
> -- Coren / Marc

You could walk in the shoes of others, as Jimbo advocates, and you
could create an RFC to show whether users prefer it, rather than
putting the burden of proof onto a community that has already
established what it wanted. In fact, if you are creating the RFC then
you could make it jump through whatever hoops you would like to see to
"prove" whatever it is you think remains unproven, rather than
expecting some mug of a volunteer to guess what it is that might
satisfy your needs.

As for the reasoning that no community RFC is ever representative of
users, as users without an account never voted, this seems a basic
logical fallacy. There is no "us and them" with readers/viewers, as
all volunteers who happen to have an account are 100% readers and

fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to