|WikiProject Secret Societies||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on September 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
his article seems to have been largely plagarised
This article seems to have been largely plagarised from the [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/backbone-cabal.html Jargon File article] about the cabal. I don't know anything about this subject so I'm not going to attempt a rewrite, but a rewrite should be strongly considered. Gsgeorge 05:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Jargon File is PD, so we can use it. Removed copyvio notice & restored original content. --SJK 04:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
(I just linked a few things in here for you guys in case people don't fully understand what some of your terms mean. Valeriya 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
- I deny this article existsPdeitiker 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (member#666: TINC since 2000)
- There is no article
there is no "other side" to compare neutrality against. I'm not just making a TINC joke. usenet, especially ALT.* was and is a different world, with different rules. it's "slanted" because it reflects the attitude and reality of usenet as opposed to the "real world" (which would be more like "huh?")mxt126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A published reference
A published reference is:
Hardy, Henry Edward, 1993. The Usenet System, ITCA Teleconferencing Yearbook 1993, ITCA Research Committee, International Teleconferencing Association, Washington, DC. pp 140-151, esp. p 146 at subheading "The Great Renaming" and "The Breaking of the Backbone Cartel".
NB I have not put this in the main body of the article as I am the author of the reference provided above from the ITCA Yearbook, and therefore will leave the determination about including it to others.
I'm dubious about leaving the Jargon File as the principle reference, as it exists in many forks and versions and contains much "myth" and "folklore". It lacks proper sourcing and dates to provide context and verifiability.
Scanlyze 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone make this remotely comprehensible?
I mean, I've read it four times now, and all I can really pick up is that it was some bunch of guys who supplied servers for USENET who are involved in the Masons? Or something? 188.8.131.52 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, perhaps you should read it again. If you can make it more comprehensible, you don't even need to know about the subject, just help its readability. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. One cannot make something more readable without knowing the subject. I also think the article does not define the meaning of "Backbone cabal" in a clear way. Wed Jul 16 15:10:51 CEST 2008
Cabal lasted well after 1988
no. it wasn't. there is no cabal. it cannot have existed in a reduced form with different members until 2003. one cannot learn more about it in alt.config, so don't go look up the archives. -mycroft xavier tanstaafl (there is no mycroft xavier tanstaafl, either)184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the two external links to faqs.org do not give the expected page anymore.
I don't know what they were pointing to, but here are suggestions:
- http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/alt/alt.conspiracy.usenet-cabal.html (meta information on the FAQ)
- http://www.filewatcher.com/m/cabal-conspiracy-FAQ.8716-1.html (links to the copies of the contents of the Usenet cabal FAQ)
I let contributors to this article amend as I am unsure what to do.
Cheers — Boism 00:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)