LOL, I'm obviously not talking about "the" admins. I'm talking about
cliques: People who '''do''' show a vested interest in some
particular, and coordinate edits accordingly. There are also cliques
which are primarilly focused on chatting w one another, leaving small
jokes and images on one anothers pages. The latter are usually a good
thing, encouraging community and making people happier about editing.
They can become a problem however when 1 member has a conflict, and
rallies the others into prejudiced partisan support.
Please be mindful, were talking about middle school style
'''cliques''', not some outdated usenet concept or crazed
conspiracy
theories w Jimbo playing puppeteer from the shadows.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 9/22/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/22/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
This distinction between Clique and Cabal is an
important one. While I
suppose one could imagine a "developers clique", or a "old hands
clique" which might be synonymous w some peoples conception of a
cabal, I really don't see those as being a problem on the wiki. Rather
the problem I see are users and admins which act as one, creating
partisan voting blocks on areas of mutual interest, and coordinating
efforts to shout down criticism and attempts to NPOV their POV.
Jack (Sam Spade)
You might have a case if anyone had ever managed to get the admins to
agree on anything.
--
geni