In an off-wiki (but public) discussion forum, a group of detractors of a living person publicly discuss colluding to disrupt Wikipedia in these terms: ----- "It seems to me, Jim, that the way for us to deal with Wiki should be 'all or nothing'. " "XXXX [WP editor 1] is concerned that Wiki should be an honest, well- sourced information resource. The world at large already knows Wiki will never be that - especially experts in any given field who already have publishing outlets and have no need nor desire to have their thoughts tinkered and tampered with by an amateur, self- appointed editorship. " "Google-searching your chosen area of interest gets you further and faster. Wiki is crap, and the bigger it gets, the more irrelevant it becomes - more blogosphere than reputable encyclopedia. " "But, pragmatically, it would make sense if every forum member joined in the editing there, if only to make YYYY [WP editor 2] work for a living and discredit ZZZZ (Living person) in the process. Just join in, a phrase here and there, change or remove things that are false, add things that are missing, generally raise hell? " "Alternatively, we could all stay clear and have nothing to do with this blatent [sic] pro-XXX vanity piece. What we shouldn't do any more is attempt lengthy XXX-style discussions aimed at achieving 'consensus' among Wiki eds. (Though full marks to XXX - and XXX and others, too - for trying)." "I say just either dive in and edit the fu*cker silly, however you see fit, hit-and-run style, or leave well alone. But do it for fun, if you do it at all. Wiki is not as important as its editors would have us believe." ---- The usernames of these people are known. Is there anything to do to preempt that possible disruption? -- Jossi