Forums for Social Groups

Wikiepedia:
By virtue of the defining thing that all members of the forum share... an interest and probable participation in cycling specifically fixed-wheel and single-speed bikes and the social life that members of the community have created around said bikes and cycling... we (the whole forum) are a subset of society... a clique.

Any further subsets that are comprised of more than a few people are also cliques. So the hardcore few who play the most polo... you're all in a clique of polo players, those who attend the beers most frequently... you're a clique too.

It's dumb to deny the obvious, we are defined by our actions, participation, interests and expression. The grouping of people who share interests has happened forever, both by themselves and by others observing. We all belong to many cliques, and empowering cliques to get more out of what they're doing is no bad thing (this whole forum does that simply by existing).

I dislike the negative perceptions of cliques... elitism, lock-out, social hierarchy... but it's incredibly hard for any of us to deny the existence of, nor the benefit of, cliques. The word clique does not have to infer any level of not being welcoming, friendly and embracing new members into the fold. But also, when the cliques do grow it is inevitable that other cliques will grow within them.

Agreed. I am in the bike polo clique. I've made a few friends from there, had some good times, and we all share the common interests. I was using the term clique-ish in the wrong way lending itself towards exclusivity when in fact polo is inclusive.

As for the whole forum being a clique, I disagree. It's so widespread now and multi-community. Apparently there's a member named singlespeed_pp , I'm safe to say we have never met and judging by his screenname I'd go so far as to say we do not have the fixed wheel in common. The amount of other members to this forum, active, participating or not does not sum up to the definition of clique. Community, yes but not a clique.