muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### why-muckrights-is-not-a-cult
other pages:
=> what-muckrights-wont-tell-you-about-the-coup.html what-muckrights-wont-tell-you-about-the-coup
*originally posted:* may 2021
extra points if you can think of exceptions to the following generalisations.
months ago, i asked myself (on behalf of others) if i would label muckrights as a cult. i didnt think i would, and i dont think i will now. im more interested in portraying muckrights for what it really is, rather than slapping arbitrary negative labels on it; even if some of the things that make muckrights a problem these days are not always obvious from a cursory review (it took me at least a couple of years and i was paying fairly close attention).
but until recently, if youd asked me why it wasnt a cult, i wouldnt have found it easy to explain.
there are certainly some cult-like aspects. new readers (at least "new" in the sense of routine interaction or communication with other people involved) are encouraged to participate (of course) and there is a certain amount of grooming that goes on, usually while they are very impressed with everything muckrights does. by itself that would not be interesting, it is only interesting to watch when you know the next part.
you might imagine that there is a progression from "new reader" to regular, to contributor, to trusted contributor-- and of course there is, though its not exactly the way most people would imagine it. the sort of working relationship someone is in at any stage of this is not based on trust, but misplaced trust-- and mirroring. if i went on to explain this in detail, you might think i was describing a cult-like environment. however, the question is not whether there are cult-like elements, the question is whether muckrights is a cult.
in other words, "trust" in this context is really how well you fit the mould of the primary author, both in ways that matter and in ways that dont. it might help (a little) to be british, but its certainly not a requirement-- it only increases the odds of having more in common. after the initial grooming, what matters most is commonality of opinions.
as with a number of cluster b personality disorders, most of this description is of behaviour that all groups (or individuals) display to some extent. the presence of such behaviour proves nothing whatsoever, only the degree. so to really "prove" any of this, you would need to find a reasonably objective way to quantify it. my assessment here is based on personal and first-hand experience, and not intended to prove anything at all-- only to relate first-hand experience. in scientific terms, this is anecdotal. but note the conclusion.
again, what differs from the point of "trusted contributor" and an actual trusted contributor is the level of trust. in a more idealised (i would say "normal" but in my opinion the tech press and information tech world has so much of this sort of thing, "normal" isnt necessarily a thing to strive for so much as "better than average") scenario, "trust" would denote actual trust. this would come with a certain level of respect-- not too much, as "respect" is an overplayed and exploited thing, thanks to the likes of jono bacon and the following generation of coc-mongers and (heres a better word) understanding-- that is simulated (mocked-up) at muckrights, though it is never implemented.
put in simpler words, "trust" in this context means ultimately being treated like a rival. but im pretty sure thats closer to the opposite of what trust means.
if "trust" means something closer to the opposite of trust, then "trusted contributor" means something closer to the opposite of trusted contributor, and thats what im getting at.
so when you contribute to muckrights, there are two ways of moving forward: your perceived (or portrayed) status, which is more linear; and the actual status, which is more cyclical.
just as an example, dfc (he had to change his handle after an unexplained ban from [m], though its not necessary for anybody to know who im referring to except those who already know him) has been criticised recently from both outside muckrights and by those in charge of muckrights. i dont entirely agree with their assessment, but it makes for a good example of what im talking about.
although (more than a decade ago) his involvement started as more of a troll than a contributor (in fact he was banned from irc the first month he was there-- that was soon lifted) if he does not have "trusted contributor" status, or whatever muckrights considers the equivalent, then such a status is hardly possible to attain. he is relied on for certain tasks, i dont think he has server access but what would he do with it anyway? though some of the things that are said about him (many of which are laughably hypocritical-- like the business of him presenting a "liability" actually makes me laugh, but only because of who says it) are both disproportionate and smack of someone who is still on probation.
there really is no "trusted contributor" status. and note the words in quotes not because they are a commonly-used phrase at muckrights, only because if they were used they would refer to something other than the most obvious meaning. there really is no trust at muckrights.
so you actually find people working to earn trust, but it is never really earned. there is a portrayed status, portrayed trust, but none actually exists. practically every reward or positive consequence is illusory, and in that regard it is certainly cult-like. but i think there the similarity ends.
ive spent several days carefully going through nearly 10,000 posts, including posts about (or written by) readers with minimal or substantial familiarity with muckrights. please dont think ive read them all, i am skimming (and bookmarking) and researching the overall trajectory of the corpus of work. more recently (timeline-wise, that is) ive watched "newbies" in irc come and go as they try and to some degree, succeed in contributing. so i already have old examples and new to compare-- but im looking for the transition, where any change exists. im already familiar with years worth of posts from 2019 to the present.
in my opinion, a true cult would have a coherence of purpose and a degree of collective view that muckrights just doesnt have. the regulars and the closest thing possible to "trusted contributors" are neither of a single purpose, nor do they seem to have much in the way of a "collective view". nor do they seem very interested (either way) in pushing anybody to contribute. a "proper" cult would most likely have several people encouraging newbies to participate more (not that such, in and of itself is a bad thing).
instead, they help with trivial tasks (proofreading being the most obvious example) and provide a sort of studio audience, which is certainly more entrenched (if only by inertia) than the public at large. they provide actual counterpoints-- the most un-cult-like thing i can point to-- which are frequently ignored, regardless of sincerity or merit or logic. these counterpoints are used as a springboard for rebuttals, and often little else. i have frequently accused the fsf of ignoring the pleas of its own members, and i have once or twice compared muckrights to the fsf in this regard. muckrights just doesnt listen, not even to its own people.
not much is really being done to summarise the "community" of muckrights here, only the dynamic and interaction. thats because the community is not the point of this article-- and ive never had a lot to say about the community except in terms of the dynamic and the interaction. muckrights has a couple of comedians, who still make me laugh sometimes. i certainly dont agree with them on everything, but what i do agree with them on will probably be ignored (or rebutted, not all that accurately) when it comes time to write an article (or more likely, an aside within an article). the point here is not agreement with me, however-- its that nobody will listen to them, either.
i would say nearly all else is in flux at this time. irc is far less interesting now that its on lockdown; and while the drop in quality is notable when trolls are allowed in, the responses to those trolls are occasionally (at least, eventually) worthwhile. indeed they still get trolled, only now its not (always) the usual suspects. one person even commented on how far the idea of silencing the biggest troll was from what was said about censoring originally... but even though this is (admittedly) innuendo, the line isnt too hard to find (as it was still recent) and i could just quote and link, but i think this is stirring the pot enough already. its worth mentioning at the very least, as an example of "they provide actual counterpoints", which is true.
this article wasnt intended to cover only the less-routine path from being treated like a guest to being treated like a rival. (some of the most-established regulars are still treated like guests). one of the reasons i refer to the initial period as "grooming" is because of the way that ron leaps from fawning over a newbie to practically ignoring them (or going "scooby-doo" on them) when another interesting newbie shows up. most newbies will not reach (or even care enough to reach) the status of rival, only that of yesterdays news. this is not a critique of the less-new newbies of course, only of the way they are relatively disregarded. some retain interest anyway, while others simply interact less and less with muckrights until they have practically disappeared.
so, is muckrights a cult? im pretty sure its not, actually. this isnt (anything like) an endorsement, its certainly not a defence, at most (one can hope) it is clarification. maybe muckrights wants to be a cult, but it either isnt trying hard enough or simply cant pull it off.
i think its safe to say though, that if it is trying to be one, those who are trying dont realise it. that wouldnt stop everybody, it hasnt stopped some people who have started or led cults before, but i suppose we can be thankful if its enough to stop muckrights from becoming one. credit where credit is due, and all that.
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org