I dispute the idea that they have. WSC says that the
majority of editors
support this idea. We know this is incorrect; if it
was true, the majority
of editors would have supported it when given the opportunity - as opposed
to >400 people. This is a sizeable number, yes, but it is a tiny, tiny
minority of those editors who contribute to Wikipedia. What we have is a
communications divide between a small minority who get involved in
governance and a large majority who, by and large, do not. This is a vast
divide, and it is not safe to assume we can accurately predict the opinions
of the majority based on those of the minority.
Now, if you want to say "of all the users who commented, the majority..."
then that's fine. But it's a mistake to argue that those who shout loudest
shout for all of us.
This argument is absurd. You dismiss the opinions of those who bother to
speak up, simply because very few bother or care to speak up. On that
basis, it's not worth ever asking the community anything, ever. That
includes the famous editor retention studies, or image filter 'referendum'.
User:AlexandrDmitri