[Wikipedia-l] Re: Some 24 comments and the cabal

[Daniel Lee Mayer]

Manning Bartlett wrote:

> I've been following the various commentary about 24 with interest, and =
> maybe I can offer some thoughts for consideration.
>
> We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - =
> Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly =
> quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at =
> times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia =
> agenda and their personal agenda.
>
> The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent =
> ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 =
> repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to =
> do but protect the project.

I will try this approach -- however, this person contributes at a phenomenal 
rate and I'm not sure if I can just sit by and let this person's personal 
agenda mare the project. 

> As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in =
> operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive =
> and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the =
> rules and you're in.=20

Those who contribute often and really care do form a kind of a group -- at 
the very least. I never really understood the total aversion against an 
administrating body (especially one that is based on meritocracy). 

>
> I know of no occasion where someone who accepted the central editorial =
> guidelines was ever made to feel excluded - one's "respect and =
> authority" is purely a measure of one's level of participation and =
> commitment, not a matter of "who you know" or (especially) "how long =
> you've been here". Jimbo retains ultimate control of the project (by =
> virtue of his paying for the damn thing), but the remainder of us are =
> its true authority structure. The Wikipedia Militia was assembled along =
> these lines - some howled with outrage, but most of us understood its =
> purpose.=20

right on.

>
> So this is a time when the "cabal" or "militia" must rise to the =
> occasion - we must simply edit quietly and remove the detritus to either =
> meta or to oblivion, as is appropriate. 24 is chiefly motivated by his =
> ability to engage us - people such as this live for their ability to =
> command the attention of people, and to eliminate his negative behaviour =
> we must remove this incentive. Two things will result - he/she will =
> either learn to play by the rules, or he/she will go away. Either way, =
> the project is better off.

I really don't think this person will learn -- 24 has most certainely been 
told about our policies and refusses to abide by them. The only supprissing 
thing is that I have yet really to get into an edit-war with him/her -- 
maybe he/she does not know how to REVERT an article yet. God help us...

>
> There is no shame is using our "collective authority" - we do not need =
> any special measures. We edit, delete, and watch each other. If Maveric, =
> Vibber, JHK, Jimbo, KQ or someone similarly respected elects to delete =
> content of 24, I'm probably going to be fairly accepting of their =
> judgment. This is motivated by my trust of them as rational beings who =
> understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This trust is not absolute, but =
> certainly substantial (and I mean no disrespect - absolute trust is not =
> possible as we are all fallible)=20

I will remove content, but I will not delete an article made by 24 unless it 
is missnamed. I am too emotionally involved now and can't trust myself enough 
to do that. That doens't mean I wont place articles in [[wikipedia:page 
titles to be deleted]] though.
>
> If the "Militia" were an exclusive operation, then there would be shame =
> to it, but that has never been the case, nor could it ever be (without =
> some seriously fundamental changes to the structure of Wikipedia, which =
> I suspect would never happen.)=20
>
There is no shame to reversing the work of crakpots.

>[.......]
> However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal dogma =
> are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's that. =
> Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
>
> Warm regards
> Manning
> Sydney, Australia

The 'pedia will be a much nicer place after you return.

maveric149