Wikipedia talk:No Virtual Majority

When nationalities come in votes

While I can certainly appreciate the need for scientific POV, I think that this policy should also address (or clearly state it does not do so) the issue of nationality-based POV (although my argument can actually be applied to scientific POV, too) in votes. A vote/debate on any subject will attact people interested in that subject. Therefore as an example, a vote on renaming of a Polish monarch will attract a high percentage of Polish wikieditors (compared to editors of other nationality). Should their votes be weighted (should they count more or less)? On the similar argument, should the votes of historians in such a debate (about a historical king) count more or less then that of other editors? Note that any such group (Poles, or historians) does not represent a majority in real life, too (although they often quote scientific sources, the issue at hand is that such group will also tend dominate discussions and article-space).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

wants no virtual scholarship either?

Ackoz's argument lumps many evolving, integrative, complementary and alternative medical modalities into one disparged group and then tries to associate the group with a worst example. This diatribe confuses entities that have tremendous disparities in scientific basis and evidence, similar to lumping Nobel prize astronomers and astrophysicists in with the worst carnival astrologers. Ackoz repeatedly attempts to distort NPOV to substitute opinions, often counterfactual, for facts. This individual's actions have been "passionate", often trying to influence Wikipedia policy in ways at fundamental variance with wiki policies (repeatedly rejected), filing RfC & RfAr with little cause or notice involved, and other intimidation techniques. Ackoz's concept of "No virtual majority" seems to be in conflict with concepts of scholarship and evolving science.--69.178.41.55 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)