Who was it that drew the comparison between the mafia (specifically with regard to "made men") and how Wikipedia operates? I read it here at WR but can't recall from whom.

Who was it that drew the comparison between the mafia (specifically with regard to "made men") and how Wikipedia operates? I read it here at WR but can't recall from whom.

Meanwhile, the administrative power structure almost looks more like the Ottoman Empire, in which a supreme ruler (the Sultan) was often encouraged to do almost nothing of an administrative nature while the bureaucracy beneath him gradually became more and more corrupt, with all sorts of secret, petty internal rivalries and abuses going on everywhere. In both cases, some power (especially at the top) was transferred in a traditional hereditary fashion, but it was still possible for almost anyone to rise to a position of power through a combination of loyalty, ruthlessness, or sheer luck. But on Wikipedia, this sort of power structure has given rise to a system that's really more Mafia-like than anything else - except that most observers would probably agree that the inner workings of the site are far too open and transparent to invite any significant comparison beyond a purely structural one (cabal or no cabal).

Using a common SF trope, Wikipedia is a quintessential post-apocalyptic warlord society. The warlords (admins) reign over subdomains of a generally anarchic space. The periodically fight each other (wheel wars), and participate in planned or ad hoc campaigns against each other. At the same time, they prevent the rise of additional opposition through exile (blocking) and assassination (banning), or cultivate acolytes and sycophants with privileges and rewards (tolerated rule-breaking, barnstars, admin status).

The warlords trade and jockey for status among themselves using a variety of mechanisms, including ritual combat -- often with proxy fighters (ArbCom), denunciation (RFC), and whispering campaigns (IRC, off-wiki in general), and when one is weakened, they will ruthlessly turn on him/her (cf. Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway).

However, some editors would be great mobsters. I can see Malleus making people offers they cannot refuse.

But the Old Guard is still big on loyalty, though I still don't think people over there quite know what they're supposed to be loyal to.

Who was it that drew the comparison between the mafia (specifically with regard to "made men") and how Wikipedia operates? I read it here at WR but can't recall from whom.

That was me to Kelly Martin the other day in the I/P arbcom thread.

I'm quite curious about Wales' ideas about "reputation effects", which according to Grep's photobucket he has been speaking about since at least 2003, and which he further refers to in his extraordinary (and yet par for the course) recent Hot Press interview (scroll down). In practice, this seems to pan out in this wise: one attains, for whatever reason, Jimbo's approval. You are now a trusted user. You can then recommend others, who immediately become likewise trusted. It is akin to being "made" in the mafia, and it's very difficult to become un-"made". Made users can have undisclosed socks, block users they dispute with, protect pages they edit, etc., since all is obv. "for the good of the encyclopedia" since they are (or have at one point been designated as) "trusted". Protests against trusted users are trolling. On the occasions when they are undeniably caught in a bind, the matter will when possible be looked at in private, and explanations that would otherwise be laughed at are entertained seriously. An in-crowd is created, and the notion of focusing on the content issues rather than the personalities is undermined.

* collects money for protection
* induces people to give up their property
* has porn and drugs on display
* has a significant amount of hits
* uses false identities
* considers pointing to the law a bad thing

Can you see Mafia behaving like David Gerard (dancing on skulls) or dmcdevit or FT2 for instance? They pretend to be gentlemen.

I'm quite curious about Wales' ideas about "reputation effects", which according to Grep's photobucket he has been speaking about since at least 2003, and which he further refers to in his extraordinary (and yet par for the course) recent Hot Press interview (scroll down). In practice, this seems to pan out in this wise: one attains, for whatever reason, Jimbo's approval. You are now a trusted user. You can then recommend others, who immediately become likewise trusted. It is akin to being "made" in the mafia, and it's very difficult to become un-"made". Made users can have undisclosed socks, block users they dispute with, protect pages they edit, etc., since all is obv. "for the good of the encyclopedia" since they are (or have at one point been designated as) "trusted". Protests against trusted users are trolling. On the occasions when they are undeniably caught in a bind, the matter will when possible be looked at in private, and explanations that would otherwise be laughed at are entertained seriously. An in-crowd is created, and the notion of focusing on the content issues rather than the personalities is undermined.

Yes, elegantly put. It coheres with Jimbo's original announcement of the formation of the Cabal.