What happens when democracy fails..
...or meritocracy, too, or any other form of spontaneous self-organizing
structure, when the number of contributing members involved doesn't really
exceed the necessary threshold imposed by the premises of non-ad hominem
reasoning. You most likely end up in a situation similar to that of my
request for adminship on Croatian Wiktionary, where users who cumulatively
had <50 edits in the main namespace prior to the moment of my request (made
5 days ago) cast all of a sudden opposing votes [1], which is for each of
them the very first sign of activity in that project after months and months
of absence [2]. The only two users who are real and active contributors with
no personal bias are supportive of my request.
I've created an account on Croatian wiktionary in April, when I started
adding declensions and meanings for 100 or so nouns. Recently I started
contributing on English wiktionary too [3], and returned to Croatian
Wiktionary about a week ago, after having been acquainted with en.wikt's
policies on article layout, non-manual categorization and other template
tricks (context labels!), eager to backpropagate them to hr.wikt.
Facts, such as that at the moment of my return there hasn't been a single
declension/inflection template made for any language (I made all of them,
even the basic ones like hr-noun, and have been making a few new ones every
day since), or that the only currently "active" administrator made the last
edit 1.5 months ago [4], or that the sitenotice message [5] was (and still
is!) set to Wikimedia Board of Trustees election (which ended months ago) -
all of them speak for themselves.
Approximately 2/3 of currently present lexemes need either quick deletion,
or relocation to other projects (Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikipedia), as they
surely don't belong to wiktionary. The category of articles awaiting
administrator's deletion [6] is growing bigger each day, as there is noone
(Continue reading)