It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is made to be humorous. This page is not one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.This essay isn't meant to be taken seriously.
This page in a nutshell: Two or more people who agree with you constitute aconsensus. Two or more people who disagree with you constitute acabal.
Is there a cabal in Wikipedia?
OnWikipedia the term"cabal" is often used loosely to describe real or imagined collectives ofusers who have chosen to group inside or outside of themainspace orproject namespace in order to pursue an interest. Whether any given cabal actually exists usually is impossible to determine conclusively. Often the existence of a cabal is posited by a group holding opposite views to those of the supposed cabal; they may look like a cabal to others.
In the early days of Wikipedia, annoyed by a huge amount of vandalism and other irresponsible editing, a number of persons, including "fathers-founders" themselves, considered the idea of "benign cabals".Larry Sanger was a strong proponent of giving editors considered to be experts an extra power, which was one of his major disagreements withJimbo, and he even attempted to implement "expertocracy" inCitizendium. In 2001, Jimbo himself mused on the idea of "cabal membership",[1] which had eventually led to the concept ofadministrators.
Secret cabal – This type of cabal is restricted in its membership and secretive about its functions or existence. The aims of such groups may bedisruption of the project, promotion of its members to become Wikipedia functionaries, orcanvassing and/ormeatpuppetry and/ortag teaming, possibly to impress a specificpoint of view on the encyclopedia. While speculation exists about how much influence such groups have over the encyclopedia, social groups are a fact of life, and some users have been known to use off-wiki means (IRC, e-mail, external websites, etc.) to coordinate their actions on-wiki.
Editor cabal – This type of cabal went through discussion on Wikipedia. In August 2005, a group calledEsperanza was formed with the idea of fellowship and strengtheningWikiLove.[2] The main concern about Esperanza was that it was bureaucratic and elitist and this was a strong concern when the group was brought toMfD.[3] In December 2006, the group was disbanded. TheCounter-Vandalism Unit is an example of a sanctioned cabal, dedicated to fight vandalism.
Joke cabal – Wikipedia is often accused of operating hierarchical cabals which most editors would not know the existence of. To satirize the theory a number of editors formed joke cabals. Some examples areThe Bathrobe Cabal,The Rouge Admin Cabal andThe Penguin Cabal. They can offer light relief to editors especially after periods of heavy editing.
Joke cabals are generally tolerated until they affect the project, at which point the matter often is taken up at one of the administrative noticeboards. Wikipedia pages used by individuals who are solely here to socialize, not contribute, may be raised atWP:MFD.
^"This highlights a perennial and worrying problem about Esperanza: that they constantly set themselves apart. They say they give Wikipedians hope – but who has any interaction with Esperanza who isn’t Esperanzan? Why is there even a special term for someone who's in Esperanza? This organization ought to be deleted because they’re targeting new and vulnerable users, who then see everything on Wikipedia through green-tinted lenses, and it is not good. It does lead to superiority complexes, regardless of what the front page says. Esperanzans, at least the active ones, see themselves as Esperanzans first and foremost. We have to delete Esperanza for their own good, to show them what Wikipedia is like outside the wall of their sub-culture" (from theEsperanza MfD)
