>>>
>>>> On 17 Jun 2007 at 14:06:08 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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