Changes

These aims never really varied from the outset, at least not by the original founding members, and they were always well known.  Different posters had different ideas of what was wrong with Wikipedia.  Some said that the problem was the lack of fact checking, some such as Daniel Brandt claimed that it was the anonymity of users, others claimed it was the way that they created a pseudo-legal handling of affairs which in turn was used to defame people's real life identities, and others claimed that it was all about Wikipedia's ability to control information by changing truth.   

These aims never really varied from the outset, at least not by the original founding members, and they were always well known.  Different posters had different ideas of what was wrong with Wikipedia.  Some said that the problem was the lack of fact checking, some such as Daniel Brandt claimed that it was the anonymity of users, others claimed it was the way that they created a pseudo-legal handling of affairs which in turn was used to defame people's real life identities, and others claimed that it was all about Wikipedia's ability to control information by changing truth.   

From its beginning, Wikipedia Review had members who opposed their rules, and prominent pro-Wikipedia people were always welcome to express their views.  This included Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger, and, while Jimbo Wales didn't ever post, he was invited to.   

From its beginning, Wikipedia Review had members who opposed their aims, and prominent pro-Wikipedia people were always welcome to express their views.  This included Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger, and, while Jimbo Wales didn't ever post, he was invited to.   

In an effort to stop Wikipedia Review becoming a pro-Wikipedia place, there were always different levels of trust to the users, with people who were anti-Wikipedia having access to certain trusted sub forums, at various times called "trusted users forum", "WR cabal" and "WR anti-cabal".  This generally included administrators as well as anyone who was trusted enough to be an administrator but for various reasons didn't want that position (such as Daniel Brandt and Blissyu2).  Selina was a member of that forum, as tech support, but was never supposed to be an administrator.

In an effort to stop Wikipedia Review becoming a pro-Wikipedia place, there were always different levels of trust to the users, with people who were anti-Wikipedia having access to certain trusted sub forums, at various times called "trusted users forum", "WR cabal" and "WR anti-cabal".  This generally included administrators as well as anyone who was trusted enough to be an administrator but for various reasons didn't want that position (such as Daniel Brandt and Blissyu2).  Selina was a member of that forum, as tech support, but was never supposed to be an administrator.