On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe hasn't pointed anything out, he's been railing about conspiracies in general, and two editors in particular, for weeks now, trying to invent ways to "get" them in some way. Unsurprisingly, these are the same two editors who are a particular focus of the WR cesspool, where he regularly posts. And you, Dan, have been doing much the same, though to your credit your forays into WR are often curtailed by your natural disgust for the loathsomeness of the general goings-on there.
Yes, the antics on WR do raise my blood pressure sometimes (I'm taking medication for that). That doesn't mean that they don't sometimes have a point in what they say (when you strip it of the silly, nutty rhetoric they tend to encrust their points with.
I don't go for the conspiracy theories outright; I prefer referring to a "clique" rather than a "cabal", to get the connotation I intend to convey about it. A "cabal" implies a much greater degree of power, organization, and pervasiveness than really exists; even English Wikipedia alone is much too big and complex for any single "cabal" or "clique" to control literally *everything* (even Jimbo couldn't keep his fingers in every single thing that goes on even if he wanted to). An editor can edit for years without even running into any of the members of the clique I'm concerned with here, if he stays away from the handful of "pet topics" the clique members are interested in (leaving over a million other articles to edit). I only ran into those people myself when I went from mainspace article edits to the internal politics of policy debates, RfAs, and so on.
However, in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up. That's perfectly fine and healthy, except when it leads such a group to circle its wagons in defense of the goals of the more control-freakish clique members, as seems to sometimes be happening here.
On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe hasn't pointed anything out, he's been railing about conspiracies in general, and two editors in particular, for weeks now, trying to invent ways to "get" them in some way. Unsurprisingly, these are the same two editors who are a particular focus of the WR cesspool, where he regularly posts. And you, Dan, have been doing much the same, though to your credit your forays into WR are often curtailed by your natural disgust for the loathsomeness of the general goings-on there.
on 6/17/07 6:16 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yes, the antics on WR do raise my blood pressure sometimes (I'm taking medication for that). That doesn't mean that they don't sometimes have a point in what they say (when you strip it of the silly, nutty rhetoric they tend to encrust their points with.
I don't go for the conspiracy theories outright; I prefer referring to a "clique" rather than a "cabal", to get the connotation I intend to convey about it. A "cabal" implies a much greater degree of power, organization, and pervasiveness than really exists; even English Wikipedia alone is much too big and complex for any single "cabal" or "clique" to control literally *everything* (even Jimbo couldn't keep his fingers in every single thing that goes on even if he wanted to). An editor can edit for years without even running into any of the members of the clique I'm concerned with here, if he stays away from the handful of "pet topics" the clique members are interested in (leaving over a million other articles to edit). I only ran into those people myself when I went from mainspace article edits to the internal politics of policy debates, RfAs, and so on.
However, in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up. That's perfectly fine and healthy, except when it leads such a group to circle its wagons in defense of the goals of the more control-freakish clique members, as seems to sometimes be happening here.
Daniel,
Are there any defense mechanisms established in WP against these "cliques" or special-interest groups?
Marc Riddell
On 6/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe hasn't pointed anything out, he's been railing about conspiracies in general, and two editors in particular, for weeks now, trying to invent ways to "get" them in some way. Unsurprisingly, these are the same two editors who are a particular focus of the WR cesspool, where he regularly posts. And you, Dan, have been doing much the same, though to your credit your forays into WR are often curtailed by your natural disgust for the loathsomeness of the general goings-on there.
on 6/17/07 6:16 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yes, the antics on WR do raise my blood pressure sometimes (I'm taking medication for that). That doesn't mean that they don't sometimes have a point in what they say (when you strip it of the silly, nutty rhetoric they tend to encrust their points with.
I don't go for the conspiracy theories outright; I prefer referring to a "clique" rather than a "cabal", to get the connotation I intend to convey about it. A "cabal" implies a much greater degree of power, organization, and pervasiveness than really exists; even English Wikipedia alone is much too big and complex for any single "cabal" or "clique" to control literally *everything* (even Jimbo couldn't keep his fingers in every single thing that goes on even if he wanted to). An editor can edit for years without even running into any of the members of the clique I'm concerned with here, if he stays away from the handful of "pet topics" the clique members are interested in (leaving over a million other articles to edit). I only ran into those people myself when I went from mainspace article edits to the internal politics of policy debates, RfAs, and so on.
However, in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up. That's perfectly fine and healthy, except when it leads such a group to circle its wagons in defense of the goals of the more control-freakish clique members, as seems to sometimes be happening here.
Daniel,
Are there any defense mechanisms established in WP against these "cliques" or special-interest groups?
Marc Riddell
Well, common sense and the willingness of one lone wolf admin to spend 5 hours or reading vitriole and whining came to my defense rather well when I was being attacked by one of these cliques just this week. In the end, these cliques tend to be their own worse enemies.
KP
on 6/17/07 6:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe hasn't pointed anything out, he's been railing about conspiracies in general, and two editors in particular, for weeks now, trying to invent ways to "get" them in some way. Unsurprisingly, these are the same two editors who are a particular focus of the WR cesspool, where he regularly posts. And you, Dan, have been doing much the same, though to your credit your forays into WR are often curtailed by your natural disgust for the loathsomeness of the general goings-on there.
on 6/17/07 6:16 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yes, the antics on WR do raise my blood pressure sometimes (I'm taking medication for that). That doesn't mean that they don't sometimes have a point in what they say (when you strip it of the silly, nutty rhetoric they tend to encrust their points with.
I don't go for the conspiracy theories outright; I prefer referring to a "clique" rather than a "cabal", to get the connotation I intend to convey about it. A "cabal" implies a much greater degree of power, organization, and pervasiveness than really exists; even English Wikipedia alone is much too big and complex for any single "cabal" or "clique" to control literally *everything* (even Jimbo couldn't keep his fingers in every single thing that goes on even if he wanted to). An editor can edit for years without even running into any of the members of the clique I'm concerned with here, if he stays away from the handful of "pet topics" the clique members are interested in (leaving over a million other articles to edit). I only ran into those people myself when I went from mainspace article edits to the internal politics of policy debates, RfAs, and so on.
However, in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up. That's perfectly fine and healthy, except when it leads such a group to circle its wagons in defense of the goals of the more control-freakish clique members, as seems to sometimes be happening here.
Daniel,
Are there any defense mechanisms established in WP against these "cliques" or special-interest groups?
Marc Riddell
Well, common sense and the willingness of one lone wolf admin to spend 5 hours or reading vitriole and whining came to my defense rather well when I was being attacked by one of these cliques just this week. In the end, these cliques tend to be their own worse enemies.
KP,
I agree with you they can be their own worse enemies - eventually. It just seems to me to be another unnecessary obstacle an honest editor has to find their way around to do what we're really supposed to be doing here. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to come along to help you; there should be a mechanism for you to turn to. A person coming to the Project with an honest intention to contribute to, and improve, the substance of the encyclopedia, can eventually get fed up with the adolescent (bordering on the infantile) extraneous bullshit.
Marc Riddell
On 6/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/17/07 6:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe hasn't pointed anything out, he's been railing about conspiracies in general, and two editors in particular, for weeks now, trying to invent ways to "get" them in some way. Unsurprisingly, these are the same two editors who are a particular focus of the WR cesspool, where he regularly posts. And you, Dan, have been doing much the same, though to your credit your forays into WR are often curtailed by your natural disgust for the loathsomeness of the general goings-on there.
on 6/17/07 6:16 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yes, the antics on WR do raise my blood pressure sometimes (I'm taking medication for that). That doesn't mean that they don't sometimes have a point in what they say (when you strip it of the silly, nutty rhetoric they tend to encrust their points with.
I don't go for the conspiracy theories outright; I prefer referring to a "clique" rather than a "cabal", to get the connotation I intend to convey about it. A "cabal" implies a much greater degree of power, organization, and pervasiveness than really exists; even English Wikipedia alone is much too big and complex for any single "cabal" or "clique" to control literally *everything* (even Jimbo couldn't keep his fingers in every single thing that goes on even if he wanted to). An editor can edit for years without even running into any of the members of the clique I'm concerned with here, if he stays away from the handful of "pet topics" the clique members are interested in (leaving over a million other articles to edit). I only ran into those people myself when I went from mainspace article edits to the internal politics of policy debates, RfAs, and so on.
However, in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up. That's perfectly fine and healthy, except when it leads such a group to circle its wagons in defense of the goals of the more control-freakish clique members, as seems to sometimes be happening here.
Daniel,
Are there any defense mechanisms established in WP against these "cliques" or special-interest groups?
Marc Riddell
Well, common sense and the willingness of one lone wolf admin to spend 5 hours or reading vitriole and whining came to my defense rather well when I was being attacked by one of these cliques just this week. In the end, these cliques tend to be their own worse enemies.
KP,
I agree with you they can be their own worse enemies - eventually. It just seems to me to be another unnecessary obstacle an honest editor has to find their way around to do what we're really supposed to be doing here. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to come along to help you; there should be a mechanism for you to turn to. A person coming to the Project with an honest intention to contribute to, and improve, the substance of the encyclopedia, can eventually get fed up with the adolescent (bordering on the infantile) extraneous bullshit.
Marc Riddell
I'm certain more good editors have left in huffs permamently than will ever be regained--lots better editors than me, people with more time, who found places where they were welcome, and not bullied.
In the end, the last two times I got totally pissed off at the infantile wranglings (I'm an artist, I have no pretentions of being able to act better) I got support letters from scientists who edit Wikipedia (just a handful) and thanked me for my contributions and urged me to stay. I can read, research and interpret (in the translate way, not the analyze way) science for the layman in a way that is valuable to Wikipedia, and many other editors realize this.
In fact, the bulk of Wikipedia editors are here for the same reason I am, they believe it--Wikipedia--can be done, and they're willing to do what is necessary to do it.
What this means, though, is when I got ganged up on by a clique I had no real beef with, a group that included people I had worked with in the past, people I actually liked and admired for their contributions, other editors who knew what I do at Wikipedia stepped in.
It should not have happened at all, my getting ganged up on was indefensible. But people do that, gang up on each other all the time. You can't change human nature.
But sometimes one person acting better than their baser instincts can make human nature look a lot less awful.
I don't know what to do about editors getting lost in the venom. I think it's a serious issue, though, the cliques that run around ganging up on editors who they see disagreeing with one of their own. I also don't think it's a cabal, it's too unorganized. If it had any organization, people would stop themselves before they look as ridiculous as they do. Maybe.
KP
On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe hasn't pointed anything out, he's been railing about conspiracies in general, and two editors in particular, for weeks now, trying to invent ways to "get" them in some way. Unsurprisingly, these are the same two editors who are a particular focus of the WR cesspool, where he regularly posts. And you, Dan, have been doing much the same, though to your credit your forays into WR are often curtailed by your natural disgust for the loathsomeness of the general goings-on there.
on 6/17/07 6:16 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yes, the antics on WR do raise my blood pressure sometimes (I'm taking medication for that). That doesn't mean that they don't sometimes have a point in what they say (when you strip it of the silly, nutty rhetoric they tend to encrust their points with.
I don't go for the conspiracy theories outright; I prefer referring to a "clique" rather than a "cabal", to get the connotation I intend to convey about it. A "cabal" implies a much greater degree of power, organization, and pervasiveness than really exists; even English Wikipedia alone is much too big and complex for any single "cabal" or "clique" to control literally *everything* (even Jimbo couldn't keep his fingers in every single thing that goes on even if he wanted to). An editor can edit for years without even running into any of the members of the clique I'm concerned with here, if he stays away from the handful of "pet topics" the clique members are interested in (leaving over a million other articles to edit). I only ran into those people myself when I went from mainspace article edits to the internal politics of policy debates, RfAs, and so on.
However, in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up. That's perfectly fine and healthy, except when it leads such a group to circle its wagons in defense of the goals of the more control-freakish clique members, as seems to sometimes be happening here.
Daniel,
Are there any defense mechanisms established in WP against these "cliques" or special-interest groups?
Marc Riddell
on 6/17/07 6:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Well, common sense and the willingness of one lone wolf admin to spend 5 hours or reading vitriole and whining came to my defense rather well when I was being attacked by one of these cliques just this week. In the end, these cliques tend to be their own worse enemies.
On 6/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
KP,
I agree with you they can be their own worse enemies - eventually. It just seems to me to be another unnecessary obstacle an honest editor has to find their way around to do what we're really supposed to be doing here. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to come along to help you; there should be a mechanism for you to turn to. A person coming to the Project with an honest intention to contribute to, and improve, the substance of the encyclopedia, can eventually get fed up with the adolescent (bordering on the infantile) extraneous bullshit.
Marc Riddell
on 6/17/07 7:52 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I'm certain more good editors have left in huffs permamently than will ever be regained--lots better editors than me, people with more time, who found places where they were welcome, and not bullied.
In the end, the last two times I got totally pissed off at the infantile wranglings (I'm an artist, I have no pretentions of being able to act better) I got support letters from scientists who edit Wikipedia (just a handful) and thanked me for my contributions and urged me to stay. I can read, research and interpret (in the translate way, not the analyze way) science for the layman in a way that is valuable to Wikipedia, and many other editors realize this.
In fact, the bulk of Wikipedia editors are here for the same reason I am, they believe it--Wikipedia--can be done, and they're willing to do what is necessary to do it.
What this means, though, is when I got ganged up on by a clique I had no real beef with, a group that included people I had worked with in the past, people I actually liked and admired for their contributions, other editors who knew what I do at Wikipedia stepped in.
It should not have happened at all, my getting ganged up on was indefensible. But people do that, gang up on each other all the time. You can't change human nature.
But sometimes one person acting better than their baser instincts can make human nature look a lot less awful.
I don't know what to do about editors getting lost in the venom. I think it's a serious issue, though, the cliques that run around ganging up on editors who they see disagreeing with one of their own. I also don't think it's a cabal, it's too unorganized. If it had any organization, people would stop themselves before they look as ridiculous as they do. Maybe.
KP
Hang in there, KP. Your contributions to the encyclopedia, this List, and to the entire Project are respected and appreciated by more people than you may know. The fact that you were being harassed was what pissed me off in the first place. The Project is very, very young, with a great many growing pains. And, like anything so young it is still searching for a identity: Does it want to be the biggest or the best? But, for sure, to be either (much less both) requires a reliable structure to accomplish this within.
Marc
On 6/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
> Joe hasn't pointed anything out, he's been railing about conspiracies > in general, and two editors in particular, for weeks now, trying to > invent ways to "get" them in some way. Unsurprisingly, these are the > same two editors who are a particular focus of the WR cesspool, where > he regularly posts. And you, Dan, have been doing much the same, > though to your credit your forays into WR are often curtailed by your > natural disgust for the loathsomeness of the general goings-on there.
on 6/17/07 6:16 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Yes, the antics on WR do raise my blood pressure sometimes (I'm taking medication for that). That doesn't mean that they don't sometimes have a point in what they say (when you strip it of the silly, nutty rhetoric they tend to encrust their points with.
I don't go for the conspiracy theories outright; I prefer referring to a "clique" rather than a "cabal", to get the connotation I intend to convey about it. A "cabal" implies a much greater degree of power, organization, and pervasiveness than really exists; even English Wikipedia alone is much too big and complex for any single "cabal" or "clique" to control literally *everything* (even Jimbo couldn't keep his fingers in every single thing that goes on even if he wanted to). An editor can edit for years without even running into any of the members of the clique I'm concerned with here, if he stays away from the handful of "pet topics" the clique members are interested in (leaving over a million other articles to edit). I only ran into those people myself when I went from mainspace article edits to the internal politics of policy debates, RfAs, and so on.
However, in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up. That's perfectly fine and healthy, except when it leads such a group to circle its wagons in defense of the goals of the more control-freakish clique members, as seems to sometimes be happening here.
Daniel,
Are there any defense mechanisms established in WP against these "cliques" or special-interest groups?
Marc Riddell
on 6/17/07 6:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Well, common sense and the willingness of one lone wolf admin to spend 5 hours or reading vitriole and whining came to my defense rather well when I was being attacked by one of these cliques just this week. In the end, these cliques tend to be their own worse enemies.
On 6/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
KP,
I agree with you they can be their own worse enemies - eventually. It just seems to me to be another unnecessary obstacle an honest editor has to find their way around to do what we're really supposed to be doing here. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to come along to help you; there should be a mechanism for you to turn to. A person coming to the Project with an honest intention to contribute to, and improve, the substance of the encyclopedia, can eventually get fed up with the adolescent (bordering on the infantile) extraneous bullshit.
Marc Riddell
on 6/17/07 7:52 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I'm certain more good editors have left in huffs permamently than will ever be regained--lots better editors than me, people with more time, who found places where they were welcome, and not bullied.
In the end, the last two times I got totally pissed off at the infantile wranglings (I'm an artist, I have no pretentions of being able to act better) I got support letters from scientists who edit Wikipedia (just a handful) and thanked me for my contributions and urged me to stay. I can read, research and interpret (in the translate way, not the analyze way) science for the layman in a way that is valuable to Wikipedia, and many other editors realize this.
In fact, the bulk of Wikipedia editors are here for the same reason I am, they believe it--Wikipedia--can be done, and they're willing to do what is necessary to do it.
What this means, though, is when I got ganged up on by a clique I had no real beef with, a group that included people I had worked with in the past, people I actually liked and admired for their contributions, other editors who knew what I do at Wikipedia stepped in.
It should not have happened at all, my getting ganged up on was indefensible. But people do that, gang up on each other all the time. You can't change human nature.
But sometimes one person acting better than their baser instincts can make human nature look a lot less awful.
I don't know what to do about editors getting lost in the venom. I think it's a serious issue, though, the cliques that run around ganging up on editors who they see disagreeing with one of their own. I also don't think it's a cabal, it's too unorganized. If it had any organization, people would stop themselves before they look as ridiculous as they do. Maybe.
KP
Hang in there, KP. Your contributions to the encyclopedia, this List, and to the entire Project are respected and appreciated by more people than you may know. The fact that you were being harassed was what pissed me off in the first place. The Project is very, very young, with a great many growing pains. And, like anything so young it is still searching for a identity: Does it want to be the biggest or the best? But, for sure, to be either (much less both) requires a reliable structure to accomplish this within.
Marc
Thank you, Marc. A LOT of people got pissed off at my being harassed, a suprising large number. I didn't even consider steaming out in a tantrum this time because of the overwhelming support I received from so many people. In addition, the attack was very over-reaching and desperate. so it wound up being more amusing, or would have been, but for the damage to Wikipedia when people gang up on an editor.
Yeah, I'm a hot head. I know it.
KP
K P wrote:
Are there any defense mechanisms established in WP against these "cliques" or special-interest groups?
Marc Riddell
ell, common sense and the willingness of one lone wolf admin to spend 5 hours or reading vitriole and whining came to my defense rather well when I was being attacked by one of these cliques just this week. In the end, these cliques tend to be their own worse enemies.
We just need enough dung beetles to deal with the residue left by these elephants in the room. :-)
Ec
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:16:11 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up.
I have heard this asserted before. The problem is, I am unable to identify the members of the clique. Every time I think I have them bang to rights, they go and disagree with each other about something fairly significant.
Maybe it's a human nature thing: the tendency to see a conspiracy wherever a group disagrees with you. Or maybe there really is a clique, and I am just very bad at spotting it. Or perhaps there are actually a lot of individuals, some having been around longer than others, and some of their values overlap in some areas.
One thing Jeff Merkey said which I thought was interesting: in his vision of Wikipedia, teenagers would get less influence. I'm not sure if there is an age correlation (old or young) in the supposed cliques.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/18/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:16:11 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
in those policy areas, there does seem to be a fairly cohesive small clique of people who have a disproportionate amount of influence, and whose behavior seems to be practically immune to questioning. This is not so much an "evil conspiracy" as it is the natural social-networking tendencies of human nature; people tend to form into clusters of friends, who help one another out and back one another up.
I have heard this asserted before. The problem is, I am unable to identify the members of the clique. Every time I think I have them bang to rights, they go and disagree with each other about something fairly significant.
Yeah, one would except human beings who think alike on some issues to think and act precisely alike all on issues, so any time they disagree by one, it's proof .... Well, it's proof they're human beings.
KP
Maybe it's a human nature thing: the tendency to see a conspiracy wherever a group disagrees with you. Or maybe there really is a clique, and I am just very bad at spotting it. Or perhaps there are actually a lot of individuals, some having been around longer than others, and some of their values overlap in some areas.
One thing Jeff Merkey said which I thought was interesting: in his vision of Wikipedia, teenagers would get less influence. I'm not sure if there is an age correlation (old or young) in the supposed cliques.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l