Observations on Wikipedia Behavior (2008)
This list strikes me as a long and not particularly well reasoned way of justifying (to the writer themself, probably, but also to others) questionable past and future behaviour that maintains the status quo and the keeps the &quot;cabal&quot; intact while waving away criticism.<p>Some choice quotes that come with no acknowledgement there are valid criticisms, and no solution to those criticisms other than &quot;keep doing what you&#x27;re doing&quot;:<p>- “attack sites are the whining of the incompetent, who failed to succeed at editing Wikipedia”<p>- &quot;There IS a cabal. It&#x27;s a core group of editors united by the belief that the encyclopedia must protect itself against jerks, and against people who write junk.&quot;<p>- &quot;When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.&quot;<p>- &quot;The only bias it has arises from the self-selection of its members&quot;<p>Could&#x27;ve written &quot;You have a problem with the way we do things? ¯\_(ツ)_&#x2F;¯&quot; and saved some time.