False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

5,260 bytes added , 28 September 2004

revert. show the law(s) they are breaking and this will move to Claims of corruption, you may not be Wikimedia's lawyer, but you should be our cousel to avoid libel charges

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,842

edits

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 ::I see is that there is no other thing to do exept to assume people are telling the truth. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:18, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
 ===Resolution to being a false claim===
@@ Line 129: / Line 127: @@
 **'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:50, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)
+----
+==Unsubstantiated claim: Donations from outside of Florida to Wikimedia foudation violates federal law==
+Unsubstantiated claim: solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines - this violates US federal law which states clearly that only federally-registered [[charitable status]] entitles an organization to make such solicitations;
+::Response by Anthere:  Granted, [[English Wikipedia User Anthere|I]] do not know if this is true. Please provide the relevant article in the law. '''The federal registration is under way'''. If it were true, it would be a legal issue, not a sign of corruption as nothing is hidden. People pay willingly, the near entirety of the money is used according to donators will and the uses made with the money are absolutely transparent. Consequently, not only is this accusation doubtful, but even if it were true, it constitute defaming to make an accusation of corruption.
+:::Response by [[142.177.X.X]] to Anthere (apparently):  We are not your lawyer.  We are not your advisor.  Ignore this allegation at your peril.  We are not here to provide you legal advice, just to warn you that the truth is known and will be used to destroy your organization and discredit your friends.  You are of course attempting [[libel chill]] by using the word "[[defaming]]":  it is perfectly legitimate to assume that an organization that is breaking one law, as you appear to be, is breaking another.
+===Motivation for critiqued practice and debate about it===
+::This and other accusations, which have frequently been made by [[142.177.X.X|a notorious Wikipedia critic]], were discussed extensively in [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015211.html this mailing list post] by Jimbo Wales, which he summarised thus: ''In short, if anyone has *any* questions or concerns about legal or financial matters, I ask you to please write to me privately and express those concerns openly and honestly, so that I can resolve anything of this sort to everyone's satisfaction.  If, after you've talked with me privately, you find that you have any remaining issues that you don't feel I've addressed, then by all means I encourage you to go public with your complaints. That's my biggest problem, really, with what this troll is doing. He's issuing a lot of lies (anonymously of course) and insinuations, attempting to make a public stink, rather than honestly and simply raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner.  I don't actually fear any actual legal action, because in order to file a legal action, he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him. Anyhow, really, I wanted to say all this because I want you you all to know my keen interest in openness, transparency, fairness, etc.  I want to do whatever I need to do to make sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is looked to as a shining example of how a nonprofit should be run, with tight attention paid to expenses, good stewardship of donor money, etc.''. --Unknown
+...an issue debated on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] but overruled by legal expert Jim Wales as per usual
+::Response:  An accusation made with no back up links has no validity and cannot be questioned. It consequently constitute defaming. "As per usual" is a fallacious argument as well, with no source.
+:::Counter:  It's very easy to find Wales spouting his own legal opinions and imposing them on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]].  You are just looking for an excuse to deny this, you aren't seriously investigating the claim as if you cared (which you don't, according to you, Wales is just fine as a lawyer for a major encyclopedia that often publishes questionable statements about people).[[Trolls]] will provide evidence to the state of Florida on this issue, not to you.  We are not going to do your own due diligence for you unless we are directly paid by you to [[audit]] your organization's complaince with the law.  You have guaranteed that this complaint will be made with your attitude.  If we were to provide "back up links" it is likely that you would simply censor the evidence itself as a typical cover-up.  We are by no means intimidated by your use of the word "defaming", as you are yourselves liars who defame constantly.  In a fair court process, we are confident that our friends will prevail against your friends, since our friends do not solicit donations for charitable reasons and then spend them publishing [[libel]].
+===Resolution to being a unsubstatiated claim===
+*Until someone delievers '''precise links to the federal law''' text that substantiates this claim (and Florida state law if it provides some insight to this as well) it is considered unsubstantiated.
+*There is nothing in [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Not-for-profit_corporation en: Wikinfo: Not-for-profit corporation] or [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Non-profit_organization en: Wikinfo Non-profit organisation] to support the claim that there is any wrong doing in this issue.
+**'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:52, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)

False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption (edit)

Revision as of 15:46, 28 September 2004