I see the term mentioned a lot here but cannot quite understand in what content - is it a site? a piece of terminology to describe a type of behaviour?

Hive Mind = Group Think

Okay, I lied about the "Think".

Jon

It's also a site run by Daniel Brandt that shows the real life identities of some Wikipedia admins. Link

That was very enlightening about some of these people and why they have their...derangements, shall we say.

It also serves as a revenge platform for people that piss Mr Brandt off, or who he deems to have gone beyond what he considers appropriate behaviour, generally by being as irresponsible over the real lives of individuals as he thinks they are themselves. Mr Brandt is flexible, though, and will remove or place people on the site on the basis of what they do in respect of requests by him.

Speaking Of Generics …


Jon

Hivemind is used as a blackmail tool by Daniel Brandt.

Yes, but Wikipedia is used as a blackmail tool by Wikipedia editors, so I'm afraid that you're even there.

Yes, there's a lot of it about. We had a long thread about a similar topic recently.

To Curruthers; that was the point that I was trying to make, that Hivemind replicates the worst of what can be found in WP and, as with WP, is often indiscriminate in its choice of targets; it thus has no moral highground - although I have no idea whether Mr Brandt even considers that to be part of the remit.

The WW Hivemind has the "high moral ground" of the defender vs. the initiator of force of violence.

If you didn't see who threw the first punch, you can't tell the good-guy from the bad-guy in ANY fight. They look the same after the fight has started.

Yes, but Mr. Brandt is not WR, so his decisions are made for reasons which only he can know. Perhaps he is justified? Perhaps not? Who knows. In any case, what Hivemind does is to point out the fact that anybody can find out anything about anyone, given time and effort. Hopefully, editors on WP and elsewhere will take this to heart....

Actually, no, it's not even. Daniel Brandt has made a point of conducting all his activities using his legal name. He never hides behind a screen name. His complaint about Wikipedia is that it as used as a platform for all sorts of defamation and other dirty stuff, and the perps hide behind a veil of anonymity. Daniel's argument for Hivemind is that the Wikipedia perps should come out in the open and accept public responsibility for what they do -- as he himself does. If they are unwilling to do so (and they generally are unwilling,) Daniel then brings his formidable skills as a researcher to the task of unmasking them. You are free to disagree with his reasoning, but I wanted to make sure that his actual reasoning was presented here.

Brandt is trying to help Jimbo get the job done. There's an entire category of people on the planet who seem to consider themselves an exception, as they merrily start or expand biographies on others. At last count, there were 260,000 biograhies of living people on Wikipedia. There are 77 on hivemind. Brandt is rather ineffective because he doesn't get much cooperation, but he keeps trying.

Well, Get Thee To Work!

You can start by updating the list of Wikipediot Not-Ables on this thread, and making sure that there's a WP:BIO on each and every one.

Jon

>>Hivemind is used as a blackmail tool by Daniel Brandt.
>Yes, but Wikipedia is used as a blackmail tool by Wikipedia editors, so I'm afraid that you're even there.

Best part: This is NOTHING.

Wiki dirt, Brandt's Hivemind, whatever, it's chickenfeed.....
compared to some OTHER forums.

I'd post an example but you might think it was a hoax.