False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption: Difference between revisions
(forgot to sign) |
(removing redundant link transit stuff; demonstrating that none of these are "false", noting Sysop Vandal point of view which believes sysops absolutely, discounts trolls completely, and so on) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''The following is from [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] not [[New Troll point of view]]. That is, a reasonable and objective party with no history dealing with the parties accused and providing evidence would not conclude that claims were '''false or unsubstantiated''' based on what is cited here. They are [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] issues that for some reason have been disputed or resolved or where the accusation itself forced previously hidden information to light, e.g. the election results, the unilateral dealing with very important matters like the China ban, | |||
==False claim: Wikimedia holding Board Vote results is a sign of corruption== | ==False claim: Wikimedia holding Board Vote results is a sign of corruption== | ||
'''False claim''': [[Wikimedia]] is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows: | '''False claim''': [[Wikimedia]] is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows: | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
*'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:42, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | *'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:42, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | ||
::This is simply wrong. Choosing not to have an [[independent board]] retards the project considerably, contrast [[LongNow]]'s success at doing real action. It is only the [[sysop power structure]] and [[priestly hierarchy]] that benefit from having no actual legally competent board members for instance to tell them that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]]. | |||
==Unsubstatiated and later on false claim of Wikimedia withholding valuable link transit data in favor of commercial interests of Bomis== | ==Unsubstatiated and later on false claim of Wikimedia withholding valuable link transit data in favor of commercial interests of Bomis== | ||
*'''False Claim:''' withholding of information regarding [[link transit]] at [[Wikipedia]] which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a [[search engine]] like Bomis; several attempts to raise this issue have been suppressed; in September 2004 [[User:TimStarling]] did some code to start to deal with it. | *'''False Claim:''' withholding of information regarding [[link transit]] at [[Wikipedia]] which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a [[search engine]] like Bomis; several attempts to raise this issue have been suppressed; in September 2004 [[User:TimStarling]] did some code to start to deal with it. | ||
::This is simply wrong. The claim was quite substantiated - no one had any access to this data as a direct result of decisions made by [[Wikimedia]], i.e. no [[independent board]] thus no serious funding thus no [[link transit]] or even [[page view]] frequency data. | |||
===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ||
No one has requested this information. It is not analysed by Wikimedia or anyone else (eg. Bomis) currently according to several (unnamed per request) [[MediaWiki]] developers with shell access to all machines. | No one has requested this information. | ||
::A lie - both [[page view]] and [[link transit]] were constantly requested at [[Meta-Wikipedia]] since at least late 2002. | |||
It is not analysed by Wikimedia or anyone else (eg. Bomis) currently according to several (unnamed per request) [[MediaWiki]] developers with shell access to all machines. | |||
::There is no reason to believe people in this [[conflict of interest]]. | |||
Also Read [[link transit]]. Where [[User:TimStarling]] has come up with some code to implement part of the functionality that the false claim states to be in the posession and use of Wikimedia or Bomis. | Also Read [[link transit]]. Where [[User:TimStarling]] has come up with some code to implement part of the functionality that the false claim states to be in the posession and use of Wikimedia or Bomis. | ||
::That's nice - two years later under the pressure of being accused of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] in public they finally write some code that may or may not work. What's that worth? | |||
===Resolution to being a false claim=== | ===Resolution to being a false claim=== | ||
See above motivation and [[link transit]]. It seems likely that this information will soon be made available to all interested parties | See above motivation and [[link transit]]. It seems likely that this information will soon be made available to all interested parties | ||
::Likely TO WHOM? Only to the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]], thus, it is the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] expressed here. | |||
**'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:50, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST) | **'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:50, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ||
| Line 49: | Line 66: | ||
'''False claim''': [[Wikimedia]] is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows: | '''False claim''': [[Wikimedia]] is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows: | ||
::This is wrong. They are corrupt because they did not WANT to initially. A non-corrupt organization does not have to be asked to release election result data. | |||
The partially released [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000370.html results] of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] "election" proves what [[trolls]] have always said: it is a front for the [[sysop power structure]]: | The partially released [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000370.html results] of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] "election" proves what [[trolls]] have always said: it is a front for the [[sysop power structure]]: | ||
| Line 54: | Line 72: | ||
*withholding full [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] election results from the voters! [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000360.html apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo] the [[GodKing]] of Wikimedia and Bomis | *withholding full [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] election results from the voters! [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000360.html apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo] the [[GodKing]] of Wikimedia and Bomis | ||
'''Filed by [[142.177.X.X]] | '''Filed by [[142.177.X.X]] immediately after the elections - note references.''' | ||
===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ||
::This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly. | ::This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 84: | ||
*Claim proved false and moved to [[Talk:Wikimedia_corruption]] claims on '''14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)''' | *Claim proved false and moved to [[Talk:Wikimedia_corruption]] claims on '''14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)''' | ||
*'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | *'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | ||
:::::Again from [[Sysop Vandal point of view]]. Only to the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]] does a claim correct when made and referencing the intent of people become 'False' when those people are finally forced to give in. If you steal something and lie about it, and I say you are a thief, then, you give it back, does the claim that you are a thief become a "false claim"? | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 71: | Line 93: | ||
'''Filed by [[142.177.X.X]] date yet to be determined''' | '''Filed by [[142.177.X.X]] date yet to be determined''' | ||
::If this is not a sign of corruption, why do all serious nonprofit and most publcly traded for-profits insist on having such boards to allay accusations of [[corruption]]? Basically this is just more nonsense and naivete about the real purposes of a board. | |||
===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ||
One can not realistically that the first board of a new [[foundation]] would consist of any members who are not heavily involved and experienced in the area the board is supposed to be overseeing. Time for moving away from affiliated board members is when the foundation elects it's next board. Do not expect [[CGO]] to consist of any other then heavily involved people, this would be unrealistical and unproductive if the board members had no experience or involevement with the | One can not realistically that the first board of a new [[foundation]] would consist of any members who are not heavily involved and experienced in the area the board is supposed to be overseeing. Time for moving away from affiliated board members is when the foundation elects it's next board. Do not expect [[CGO]] to consist of any other then heavily involved people, this would be unrealistical and unproductive if the board members had no experience or involevement with the | ||
::Nonsense. One can find people who are 'heavily involved' but not commercially interested to constitute a majority of the board. | |||
===Resolution to not a sign of corruption=== | ===Resolution to not a sign of corruption=== | ||
| Line 80: | Line 106: | ||
*'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:42, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | *'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:42, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | ||
::Nonsense. [[Independent board]] means more confident donors means more money means a better project means more real action that meets the donors' desires to support an [[encyclopedia]] not a [[sysop power structure]]. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 07:59, 14 September 2004
The following is from Sysop Vandal point of view not New Troll point of view. That is, a reasonable and objective party with no history dealing with the parties accused and providing evidence would not conclude that claims were false or unsubstantiated based on what is cited here. They are alleged Wikimedia corruption issues that for some reason have been disputed or resolved or where the accusation itself forced previously hidden information to light, e.g. the election results, the unilateral dealing with very important matters like the China ban,
False claim: Wikimedia holding Board Vote results is a sign of corruption
False claim: Wikimedia is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows:
The partially released results of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees "election" proves what trolls have always said: it is a front for the sysop power structure:
- withholding full Wikimedia Board of Trustees election results from the voters! apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo the GodKing of Wikimedia and Bomis
Filed by 142.177.X.X date yet to be determined
Motivation for critiqued practice
- This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly.
- Sorry, this was true when written, and, full disclosure is full disclosure. What were they trying to hide? Whether they succeeded in hiding it or not. It appears they were trying to hide just how many cronies could use their cronyism to score high in this "election"
Resolution to claim being false
- After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --Juxo
- Claim proved false and moved to Talk:Wikimedia_corruption claims on 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)
- Claim moved to FUCOC by and on --Juxo 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)
Claim not a sign of corruption: No independent board in Wikimedia
- no independent board members not affiliated with operations or Bomis - the usual definition of an independent board is one that can judge operations objectively thus does not participate in them, operating as an avenue of appeal for any such decisions;
Filed by 142.177.X.X date yet to be determined
Motivation for critiqued practice
One can not realistically that the first board of a new foundation would consist of any members who are not heavily involved and experienced in the area the board is supposed to be overseeing. Time for moving away from affiliated board members is when the foundation elects it's next board. Do not expect CGO to consist of any other then heavily involved people, this would be unrealistical and unproductive if the board members had no experience or involevement with the
Resolution to not a sign of corruption
Based on the motivation for having an initial board consisting of people affiliated with the real action the foundation is succesfully supporting.
- This is simply wrong. Choosing not to have an independent board retards the project considerably, contrast LongNow's success at doing real action. It is only the sysop power structure and priestly hierarchy that benefit from having no actual legally competent board members for instance to tell them that Wikipedia violates GFDL.
Unsubstatiated and later on false claim of Wikimedia withholding valuable link transit data in favor of commercial interests of Bomis
- False Claim: withholding of information regarding link transit at Wikipedia which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a search engine like Bomis; several attempts to raise this issue have been suppressed; in September 2004 User:TimStarling did some code to start to deal with it.
- This is simply wrong. The claim was quite substantiated - no one had any access to this data as a direct result of decisions made by Wikimedia, i.e. no independent board thus no serious funding thus no link transit or even page view frequency data.
Motivation for critiqued practice
No one has requested this information.
- A lie - both page view and link transit were constantly requested at Meta-Wikipedia since at least late 2002.
It is not analysed by Wikimedia or anyone else (eg. Bomis) currently according to several (unnamed per request) MediaWiki developers with shell access to all machines.
- There is no reason to believe people in this conflict of interest.
Also Read link transit. Where User:TimStarling has come up with some code to implement part of the functionality that the false claim states to be in the posession and use of Wikimedia or Bomis.
- That's nice - two years later under the pressure of being accused of alleged Wikimedia corruption in public they finally write some code that may or may not work. What's that worth?
Resolution to being a false claim
See above motivation and link transit. It seems likely that this information will soon be made available to all interested parties
- Likely TO WHOM? Only to the sysop vandal, thus, it is the Sysop Vandal point of view expressed here.
False claim: Wikimedia holding Board Vote results is a sign of corruption
False claim: Wikimedia is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows:
- This is wrong. They are corrupt because they did not WANT to initially. A non-corrupt organization does not have to be asked to release election result data.
The partially released results of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees "election" proves what trolls have always said: it is a front for the sysop power structure:
- withholding full Wikimedia Board of Trustees election results from the voters! apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo the GodKing of Wikimedia and Bomis
Filed by 142.177.X.X immediately after the elections - note references.
Motivation for critiqued practice
- This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly.
- Sorry, this was true when written, and, full disclosure is full disclosure. What were they trying to hide? Whether they succeeded in hiding it or not. It appears they were trying to hide just how many cronies could use their cronyism to score high in this "election"
Resolution to claim being false
- After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --Juxo
- Claim proved false and moved to Talk:Wikimedia_corruption claims on 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)
- Claim moved to FUCOC by and on --Juxo 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)
- Again from Sysop Vandal point of view. Only to the sysop vandal does a claim correct when made and referencing the intent of people become 'False' when those people are finally forced to give in. If you steal something and lie about it, and I say you are a thief, then, you give it back, does the claim that you are a thief become a "false claim"?
Claim not a sign of corruption: No independent board in Wikimedia
- no independent board members not affiliated with operations or Bomis - the usual definition of an independent board is one that can judge operations objectively thus does not participate in them, operating as an avenue of appeal for any such decisions;
Filed by 142.177.X.X date yet to be determined
- If this is not a sign of corruption, why do all serious nonprofit and most publcly traded for-profits insist on having such boards to allay accusations of corruption? Basically this is just more nonsense and naivete about the real purposes of a board.
Motivation for critiqued practice
One can not realistically that the first board of a new foundation would consist of any members who are not heavily involved and experienced in the area the board is supposed to be overseeing. Time for moving away from affiliated board members is when the foundation elects it's next board. Do not expect CGO to consist of any other then heavily involved people, this would be unrealistical and unproductive if the board members had no experience or involevement with the
- Nonsense. One can find people who are 'heavily involved' but not commercially interested to constitute a majority of the board.
Resolution to not a sign of corruption
Based on the motivation for having an initial board consisting of people affiliated with the real action the foundation is succesfully supporting.
- Nonsense. Independent board means more confident donors means more money means a better project means more real action that meets the donors' desires to support an encyclopedia not a sysop power structure.
Flase Claim: Wikimedia Foundation not consulted when legally important decisions made
, e.g. in response to Wikipedia being blocked in China, which is the biggest issue it has ever faced, that Jimmy Wales unilaterally "hereby authorize Andrew Lih to make a statement on our behalf", based on usual happy NPOV talk.
- Wikimedia claims that this was discussed "offline" but no minutes or any report was made. Abusively, their shills assert that "to be certain that decisions are unilaterally taken, you first need to know whether private discussions took place or not." In other words, there is no such thing as a unilateral decision as assessed from outside - only the actual participants are ever able to say whether it was unilateral or not, and they may withhold proof that it was not at their leisure. This is an obvious and total abuse of process. This was shortly after the "election" of Wikimedia Board of Trustees who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.
Resolution of the claim being false
of newly elected board being dismissed from formulating a strategy to deal with the issue according to Engish Wikpedia user Angela she received information on this situation two weeks before the authorization was made by Jimmy.
- Claim moved to FUCOC by and on --Juxo 11:27, 11 Sep 2004 (EEST) 04:53, 11 Sep 2004 (EEST)