ICOT-That vote was taken by a few hundred voters out of the million plus contributors to the site. Several voters disagreed quite strongly.
First of all it was 1,800 voters, more than the few hundred that you mention. Second, anybody who really cared about it could have joined in the vote. The overwhelming majority were either supporting or strongly supporting the vote. I’m sure that many people saw the vast amount of supporters and got too lazy (try scrolling down the page) to support something so obviously (in their mind) right. So what if a couple of people disagree. That’s what discussions are about. And as wikipedia notes, it had by far the largest participation of a community discussion ever. And about the money that people donate-they donate it so that wikipedia can democratically run itself as it has since the beginning. If they wanted to complain, they could have done so easily enough.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.”
Therefore, I think that if someone is legislatively trying to get rid of half the attractions AND double your expenses of maintaing the playground, I feel you would be making a big mistake for not trying to get as much exposure as possible of the negativity of the legislation.
All in all, I respect your second post. Thanks.