Wikitruth thanks you for your years of support!
The Cabal
From Wikitruth
[edit] On The Cabal
I think one is eating my face.
Within a short time on Wikipedia, a hapless editing user will probably stumble into discussions mentioning the "Wikipedia Cabal". Do a search on "Wikipedia Cabal" and you'll no doubt find yourself perusing any number of pages, sites and message on Wikipedia and off referring to this entity.
More often than not, people who find themselves marginalized on Wikipedia, especially at the end of a protracted battle that couldn't be explained to a dear friend for all the backstory required, will scream about some sort of Wiki-conspiracy or Cabalistic aspect to Wikipedia. Since nobody cares and the person has failed to integrate into the Wikipedia Gelatinous Blob anyway, their cries are ignored. "Sure, sure, there's a Cabal," they say, "and that's why you can't continue to claim that Pac-Man causes cancer in third-world nations. Ha, ha.... ha."
Well, if you're rapidly browsing this article to figure out where we're going about this, we'll just make that one clear. Of course there's a Cabal. There's been one for years. It's so self-evident, so much a part of how Wikipedia has been going along, that there could be a good debate as to whether this article should even be necessary. But unlike Wikipedia's Deletionist hordes, we figure we can spare a few kilobytes of disk space and discuss the subject openly.
First, let us disabuse you of the notion that the Cabal is a formal organization, with rules of conduct, uniforms, regular meetings, a hierarchy of thugs and lieutenants, go-tos and gophers. We promise you there's no uniform conspiracy of controlling parties, there since the dawn of Wikipedia, slowly moving things into a specific political direction, specific subject matter, specific allowance of facts. Maybe, if you consider it, that's what makes it even worse that there's a Cabal.
[edit] Made Men - Or Maybe Made-Up Men
The existence of The Godfather and The Sopranos does not, by its portrayal of various types of mafioso and organized crime, automatically discount the existence of actual organized crime. Sure, there may not be suits and fedoras involved, but people who have dealt in certain types of business have had to deal with folks who stop by, weren't there for the lease signing, but apparently require some percentage of the business' operating costs to ensure continued functioning of the company and the employees' fingers. It's a shame and a sad fact of life, but it something that's certainly done. Get used to it.
So too, do the whisperings, sarcastic jibes and humorous user-page boxes fail to wash away any reasonable consideration that some sort of cabal might exist. The fact it might be less-defined as people make it out to be doesn't make it not so. If you're wondering if The Cabal of Wikipedia meets in empty warehouses, walks among the piers and byways of the harbor, and puts up the usernames and known details of Wikipedia Editors to do a hand-vote over letting them survive... don't worry, they don't.
First of all, they'd have to leave the house.
[edit] The Walesfather
Shame if something bad happened to it.
Obviously, a good Cabal needs someone at the center of it. By dint of his very existence, Jimbo Wales gets to be that person. His by-now-quaint controlling approach to Wikipedia, where he thinks he can stop things dead with a single word, or who believes that whatever he does is automatic policy, is your main tip-off. The irony of Wales' changing "Ignore All Rules" into a Policy and saying that it was always so should be an indication of the mind behind the keyboard. He is very busy traveling the world and talking about how free and open wikis will change the world; he has no time to learn any of the boring fucking processes employed on Wikipedia. Ignore all Rules, indeed.
Wales has a rotating set of Wikipedia editors, people who he's found to think most like him, and which he keeps close. The key to understanding this all, however, is this list is ever-changing. Wales will come for help or advice to his dear friends, or bend his ear in the direction of what he thinks of as like-minded folks, but it is possible to drop out of consideration. Like any life of the party, this can be arbitrary (untoward public statements putting Wales and Wikipedia in a bad light) or totally cold-hearted (person stands up to Wales in an argument, finds himself branded a troll).
Damn, it feels good to be the Walester.
Bear in mind, however, that various members of the Wikimedia foundation who have high-ranked abilities within the Wikipedia can play the part of a Wales as well. They merely have to execute wide-reaching actions on the words of "checking in" with their trusted circle and the reach of the Walesfather (since he likes to give his employees some autonomy) extends that much more without him saying a word. Don't get on his bad side, though, or you'll be biting the curb.
[edit] The Secret Ingredient
One can debate Wikipedia's pros and cons far into the night. We often do! But on one point there can be little disagreement: The processes must be transparent to the highest degree to fulfill Wikipedia's promises. If things are being handled off the record, outside of process, shielded from the sun and the prying eyes of the Wikipedia users, and these things result in decisions and changes that affect Wikipedia, the whole idea of Wikipedia tumbles like a house of cards or a pyramid scheme.
Hold your britches one moment while we make this other point clear and move on: Wikipedia can't actually function anymore with complete and total transparency. Likely, it never really could. Decisions can't be put up for consensus discussion on every single stinking minor move, edit, policy twist or financial maneuver. Things would grind to a halt quicker than your chances of scoring after projectile-vomiting on a prom date. But we said to fulfill Wikipedia's promises, where all actions are taken on the wiki and described therein, you need this transparency. It is Wikipedia's promises that are trumpeted world-wide, brayed to the heavens, held up as a sign of Life 2.0 and the way things are going to work from here on out.
But any quick time spent on a Wikipedia editor IRC channel will quickly revise your belief in "the system". Any time spent on an administrator IRC channel will salt the earth and take an elephant dump on it. Decisions are made all the time on IRC channels that you, you worthless peon, will never get to see. They will never be discussed publically, never mentioned outright as why something is just "happening" on an article. Administrators, trying to get something "done" but knowing they can't work alone, will happily wander onto their pet channel and ask someone to lend a helping hand. Back me up on this one comes the occasional cry, and suddenly a variety of editors seem to be in extreme agreement about what side to take in a discussion.
Obviously, Wales sees no issue breezing into this channel, dropping a delicious insider piece of info, and then asking his dear circle of buddies to get something done so it doesn't look bad that Wales is doing it. Stop something that users have said should continue, smack a user down because they're saying uncomfortable things... all a matter of a day's work.
Is this evil? No, it's how things are done, online and off. Out-of-process chats between prosecutors and defense attorneys are so widely accepted that they'll be mentioned in court proceedings. "Hallway debates" and "in-chamber discussions" are part of the political processes. Otherwise, as we just said, shit would just stop. You wouldn't be able to get anything done.
So, does this happen with regards to Wales and Wikipedia and a group of shifting buddies who all get together and radically affect Wikipedia's direction? You bet your bippy it does! The fact that sometimes they don't get away with it, that they fail to push things off a cliff or get something buried or an admin's personal vendetta wiped off the face of the earth, is because of the annoying (to them) aspect of Wikipedia's greatest triumph: a fuck of a lot of eyeballs.
Sure, they're a babbling, cantankerous bundle of maniacs, but on a good day, Wikipedia users smell bullshit and dive in with all guns blazing. Granted, they often smell bullshit in the wrong places, but it's kind of difficult to turn back the tide once things get rolling. And sometimes they're right, and a conversation on IRC to "get that guy" ends up backrolling into "run away! run away!". Thanks, discordant fucking Wikipedia mob! You killed many innocents, but you saved the day. Maybe.
So, what we're saying is this:
Of course there's a Cabal.
But they can't even get that right.
