WP:CABAL, An April Fool's Day joke for 2005? Options Rating

[blissyu2]

It is listed under April Fool's Day jokes for 2005, with a redirect of WP:CABAL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CABAL

Yet on 27 January 2003, an anonymous IP added this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...al&oldid=624106

Face it, there's a w:cabal here. Notable members include those who call themselves the Wikipedia:Volunteer fire department, but are actually just intent on enforcing their own views, without any trace of consultative process.

Their rallying cry is this unimplementable concept of neutral point of view, which has no meaning other than a w:war of attrition until the wiser of the individuals participating leaves in disgust, leaving the more persistent idiot to finish off the article. Wikipedia is probably doomed if this continues, and will likely resemble the "fr." version en francais, which has been taken over by a more honest cabal.

Notable evidence of a cabal is lack of participation on meta site, no discussion of more detailed access to usage logs, and Wales' taking positions on issues like offensive usernames while his cabal rationalizes it as if it were really a community decision.

Supposedly, the essay moved to meta here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cabal

And of course the meta page has nothing related to inappropriate actions on Wikipedia on it.

If we look through the history, however, we can see where the cover up began:

On 30 May 2003, the first bits of censorship came in:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...next&oldid=7537

But this was reinserted, and it remained in a half decent fashion until this edit on 3 May 2004 totally rewrote the article from something legitimate to a back-patting episode:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...ext&oldid=34052

So for a bit over a year, the meta cabal page was somewhat useful. Then it became a back patting episode, by Wikipedia fans trying to suggest that they are wonderful and anyone criticising them is a troll.

And then finally on April 1, 2005, they buried it for good by making it in to an April Fool's Day joke.

No, the April Fool's Day joke didn't start the cabal joke. It ended the real cabal charges. It was a tool of censorship.

And of course, Wikipedia now has this handy bit as a redirect for WP:TINC :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TINC

There is only a cabal if you want there to be one

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks

With such wonderful logic, they can easily dismiss every criticism imaginable.

[Donny]

With such wonderful logic, they can easily dismiss every criticism imaginable.

Yes, a lot of wikipedia is a kind of "textbook case" of what George Orwell labelled "double think". I suppose it wouldn't matter, but Wikipedia is such a dominant presence on the web now that the many problems it has are being magnified.

[blissyu2]

Except that to Wikipedia fans, the many problems that they have are being marginalised and made to look irrelevant and unimportant.

[Lir]

Except that to Wikipedia fans, the many problems that they have are being marginalised and made to look irrelevant and unimportant.

Thats the doublethink! Wikipedia is perfect and wonderful and a 'Loving Little Community' in a 100 languages with a million articles and has been cited here, and there, and by the Supreme Court, and the Federal Circuit Courts, and a Court in Colorado, and in a PhD Thesis, and had a keynote lecture on it at the international tech symposium, and signed a multi-million dollar contract, and its wholly unimportant and insignificant and not perfect by any means and all of its flaws dont matter except to trolls.