Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-1764483-20160131204339/@comment-24024415-20160201155621

Brainulator9 wrote: Simple: he's showing how his opinion can be used to influence other opinions... Ok then, he shows the reasons for opposition which allows for others to see the other side.

But that sorta brings up a different issue: blind supporting. Not just for the cause, but it can be directed against the cause as examplified in SO's example. Now, it is possible that every single user in that thread knew what they were voting for and maybe the topic of he thread truely was a bad idea, but that sometimes is just not the case.

Several votes after SO's could have been influenced with a mindset of: "this guy knows what he's talking about, he's in a position of power after all" and blindly voting on status rather than content. Let's say this happens to a major change to the wiki, where a user of high power votes either for or against the topic as numerous others follow blindly. Of course that is not the case in every single instance, but if we are looking to the extremes for voting it must be covered. What confuses me still after the explination is why that thread? As mentioned before, it is over a year old and the wiki regulations for voting have changed. Voting outcomes that have Oppose and no explination are a thing of the past and would limit that influnce in a current setting. As you said Brain: we are all becoming more critical thinkers, as influnced votes would be critiqued and countered. So what did the inclusion of the old thread do? It shows that we have increased critically and blind votes for and against a topic will be taken with much more precaution, making SO's point less powerful due to referencing a dated source.