Image via Wikipedia(This used to be in my user space, for a few hours... I had it tagged as an "essay")
The term "cabal" gets thrown around a fair bit in these parts (the english wikipedia). Sometimes in fun (see WP:LOC ) and sometimes not.
This essay is concerned with the latter kind. Because after all, what could possibly be wrong with the BRC?
The easiest way to detect a cabal is by the actions of those you think are members.
* If it seems that they always rush to each other's defense...
* If it seems like there is a "siege mentality"...
* If they offer defense for behavioural issues along the lines of "we are engaged in important work here" or "why are you saying these things", or "you're a proponent of X"...
* If they attack anyone "outside" their circle for raising issues...
* If they get angry if people observe they may be a cabal...
* If they deny the existence of the putative cabal...
...those are all bad signs.
In the course of normal events in collaborative projects, especially this one, it's natural to form working friendships with other editors, and even ask them to come in when you are in a spot where another set of eyes might be helpful. That's not cabalism, it's defending each other and is to be encouraged. There is a danger that this can slide down a slippery slope.
We should all be vigilant against that sort of sliding.
1 comment:
There is an essay by Antandrus called "Observations on Wikipedia Behavior", and I could not help but notice one of them listed:
"There IS a cabal. It's a core group of editors united by the belief that the encyclopedia must protect itself against jerks, and against people who write junk."
Here is the entire essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior
Post a Comment