 |
This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. Editors should remember that their egos are not on the line while they are here at Wikipedia. Please remember that the majority of the editors are human and are prone to mistakes, errors, flared-up emotions and stress. Editors should remember that the goal is encyclopedic information and should attempt to set aside their egos while they are here at Wikipedia.
While editors' points of view are certainly welcomed, please remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy with regard to writing articles. To that effect, editors should work with other editors despite their conflicting egos and points of view. Through collaboration and presentation of either a neutral point of view or all points of view article, Wikipedia helps to illustrate good information.
A common complaint in online communities is that there are groups of users, usually longtime members of the community, who have all the power, make all the decisions, police the behavior of everyone else, and disclaim any responsibility for such actions—a cabal. Cabals are denied even when they are conceded to have existed, as with the "benevolent" Backbone cabalatUsenet, which gave rise to the joke expression, There Is No Cabal.
In many cases, however, belief in a cabal involves the practice of stringing together a chain of outcomes that the accuser did not desire, and assigning a common causation to them. The outcomes may be unrelated, or related only in the sense that they are in line with generally accepted community practices (typically, policy pages) or evolving consensus. It is true that respected editors are influential in the latter; it is not true that they can bend the entire community to their will. Moreover, since such experienced editors are all fluent in the same policy pages, they may appear to be an organised unit.
When a editor, often a newer user, accuses others of being in on a conspiracy, they are typically surprised when the more established Wikipedians seem to band together against them. They may see this as a confirmation of their misplaced suspicions: is there really no cabal? A cabal works in secret and avoids claiming responsibility, but Wikipedia's editors do not, even though the ideas and actions of some may seem unlikeable and unfair. The lone editor can reasonably call those groups that are a little too human and cohesive for their taste a "faction", or could consider the possibility that the experienced editors have a tendency to jointly confront an accuser whose hostility lumps them all together.
It's much more productive to refute the arguments of the majority through reasoned discussion than to imply they are wrong because they are the majority, or that you are being repressed because they don't agree with you. If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will likely act like one. There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it.
If many others disagree with you, please consider that it may be because you are factually wrong according to reliable sources, or in violation of the site's policies that arose through consensus.
As Wikipedia grows, its governance mechanisms becomes more complex, and hierarchies of power spring up, both formal (admin, bureaucrat, etc.) and informal (policy wonks, cliques, etc.). Closed decision-making structures, like invite-only IRC channels and mailing lists are used, creating either the appearance or the reality of one or more cabals controlling Wikipedia processes. The Arbitration Committee is an official but limited-access entity on Wikipedia.
