Consumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Wikipedia (Reds)

2004-09-09T18:28:31Z

Cleaner:

The entire [[m:]] Meta-Wikipedia is devoted to Talk about Wikipedia. Please don't do it here!

--------------

Only issue worth noting is who we don't want coming over here. It's now getting quite easy to identify who the ideologically motivated censors are:

[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011420.html This account] correctly quotes the [[sysop vandalism|sysop-vandal]] [[w:User:Pakaran]] and the [[w:racism|overt racist]] [[w:User:RickK]] as conspiring to attack and remove views from a contrary POV, that of [[Reds]].

According to that account, "The comments by User:Pakaran
are merely an example of a broader, overarching pattern; the abuse of users
who hold unpopular beliefs is practically out in the open now and out of
control." [[w:User:Jimbo_Wales]] calls this [[sysop vigilantiism]], though he himself admits an [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011439.html anti-communist viewpoint] probably due to being American and brainwashed by racists and fascists in primary school.

Sokolov's list of racists and fascists engaged in this behaviour include[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011443.html "Pakaran, RickK, Adam Carr, PMA, Very Verily, Tim Starling, and Robert Merkel"]. Of these [[w:User:Adam_Carr]] seems most egregious to Sokolov/172. Interesting how this list compares to those listed in the various [[AWR]]. It could not be a coincidence that on a list of ONLY SEVEN USERS, that THREE OF THEM would be also those engaged in ideological censorship earlier, against 142 and others - see [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for instance, where Starling basically admits his whole motivation for adding range blocks to [[mediawiki]] is ideological.

--------------

There's an interesting discussion on the [http://www.webbyawards.com/peoplesvoice/index.html Webby - People's Voice] message boards about Wikipedia's nominations (under the "Community" and "Best practices" categories). It is partly referenced in a [[w:Wikipedia:Village pump]] thread (subject: Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia).

If you want to view or contribute comments on the Webby Awards website, go there, log in and look under "community" and "best practices" for comments.

''From [[w:Wikipedia_talk:Webby Awards]]''

:"The day will come when I will put out the call for funds to distribute paper copies of Wikipedia to every child in every third world country in the world. This, too, is our mission...to achieve those goals will require us to become famous, to become a household name to every single person on the planet. Why? Because to distribute our work to everyone in the world is going to cost an enormous ton of money,...We're taking part in a revolution here, not playing around with a sideline hobby...I fully intend to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet, and I'll do what it takes to get there" - Wales.

:This would be profitable for the paper and printing industry. What do you suggest then, printing and distributing [[Wikinfo]]? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:15, 27 Apr 2004 (EEST)

::Wales must be stopped, now, before he and his clique really do rule the encyclopedia world. He used to be just an incompetent hobbyist. Now he wants to be the Bill Gates of content.

::This would be extremely dangerous for the planet itself, given [[w:GDP]] and other far right wing entries, the unbalanced "community" that "protects" these to remain acceptable to far-right Americans. There's also deliberate censorship of even mildly green entries.

::The right answer is for an [[independent board]], say from [http://longnow.org longnow] or some bunch of [[NGO]]s, to take over and figure out what an ideal [[developing nation]] village actually cares about, and then make sure at least that is there in [[Simple English]]. Sabotaging this kind of thing is what makes good projects into [[enemy projects]]. The [[GFDL Corpus]] must be taken over by some more responsible group that cares about its users, not its own "community"/cliques.

:::Feel free to do so, it's [[GFDL]] stupid

''also from that page''

Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia

While I was voting for Wikipedia under the category of community, I ran accross a comment that suggested Wikipedia is not a community and that the encyclopedia was losing its integrity as a pedia because members were making some sort social hierarchy which resulted in the deletion and reverting of articles on the basis of who wrote it instead of the accuracy of the article. Should these accusations be true, then the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has be compromised. What I want to know is, are these supposed deletions and revertions on the basis of the writer of an article indeed occuring?

:This is true, it's [[ad hominem delete]] and [[sysop vandalism]], which are absolutely counter to any "real encyclopedia" goals.

------

There's an instructive discussion re: Wikipedia and Bomis at [[w:Talk:Fallujah]]. Several users are demanding some sort of disclaimer that Bomis is somehow associated with the U.S. Marine Corps and therefore Wikipedia/Wikimedia cannot be neutral in editing such articles as Fallujah. Jimmy Wales has replied [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012277.html here]

-----------

"Trolls and vandals [aren't] the problem -- its the control freaks who are the real problem." - Adam Rinkleff [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012098.html]

:Absolutely correct. In fact the [[trolls]] are the freedom fighters, and the [[vandals]] now seem to be serving a necessary purpose by keeping many sysops who are control freaks distracted, and hopefully burning them out eventually.

------------

Also, [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012077.html some on the mailing list] are actually advocating participating in [[googlebombing]] for partisan causes.

------------

[[English Wikipedia User Plautus satire]] [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:JustNews comments] on Wikipedia:

:"I can speak from personal experience with Wales and wikipedia, they are not nearly as interested in accuracy as they are in getting a polished product to package and sell to the highest (Disney) bidder. Blocking of users is frequent and capricious. The admins there run in packs, any time one of them finds something they want drowned off the pages, they alert the other admins who all stand in line to revert it one after another until they goad people into getting nasty with them. Classic [[troll mafia]] techniques, that project is shit as far as I'm concerned."

::The correct move is to discredit [[Wikimedia]] with the governments and corporate bidders that have expressed interest or support, and to create other [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s that are free of this Wikimedia corruption.

------

[[w:User:Secretlondon|English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]] [http://www.livejournal.com/users/secretlondon/3206.html details] how [[Jimbo Wales]] has sent an offensive email to her, telling her he was "sick of her anti-American prejudice", resulting in Secretlondon's decision to stop writing for Wikipedia.

:Probably she just did not share his [[Fox News point of view]]. ;-)

------------

''From [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]]:''

Question: If [[James Wales]], [[Daniel Mayer]], [[Tim Starling]], [[Erik Moeller]] were all kicked out, would the rest of the project stabilize and solve its corruption problems? Or is fated to be run by the likes of [[Angela Beesley]] and her friends? If so then where will the default [[GFDL corpus access provider]] come from?

Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)

2004-09-09T18:28:01Z

Cleaner:

'''[[WARNING]] This article is linked from [[142.177.X.X/Anti Wikipedia Rants]] and expresses a critical perspective. If [[neutral point of view]] is your religion or the cabal are your friends you will not like this! [[WARNING]]'''

''See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a neutral point of view version.''

==Wikipedia Itself==

'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] run by the [[Wikimedia]] foundation, It also receives support from Bomis Inc. in the form of free [[w:bandwidth|bandwidth]] and this connection with a [[for-profit]] [[corporation]] is seen as a burden affecting the functioning of [[Wikipedia]] as ''' a free encyclopedia''' as it claims to be.

''Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, especially its legally significant ones, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at [[w:Wikipedia]] and [[w:Meta-Wikipedia]], which contains largely a Wikipedia-promoting view.''

Wikipedia claims to be an [[w:encyclopedia|encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. That is, it claims to have the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus.

http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. As is often pointed out, it is in technical violation of several points of the GFDL due to a combination of software deficiencies, mismatches of the software with the terms of the GFDL, and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic, and strongly favours insiders over outsiders. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. The [[GodKing]], Jim Wales, can't read or write any language other than English. This is probably good:

Wikipedias' struggle to resolves their internal contradictions (multi-language project run by a [[GodKing]] who speaks and reads only English, claims of neutrality with no outreach or mediation mechanism other than a technology that itself puts a [[sysop power structure]] of mostly developed-world people in charge of content, inability to examine its own [[community point of view]]) will provide both good and bad examples for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for a starting list of these, and references to longstanding issues and potential solutions that 'Wikipedians' ignore and censor, mostly at [[Meta-Wikipedia]], e.g. [[m:regime change]].''

For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run, although it had teething pains, it attracted competent people who knew to selectively ignore Wales' pronouncements. Probably the worst run today is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes (or even audiences) it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have. It has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in these regards, the opposite of what a real basis for translation of articles would have done.

===Criticisms:===

Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Wrong use of it as an example focuses on the fact that it has a specific mission to build some specific content - which in fact almost all wikis do. Wikis are not wholly for the benefit of their authors, but, presumably, create some statement that WE* agree on and can present to others as OUR opinion or best assembly of the facts. The highly confused and ideological [[Meatball Wiki]] has a page[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical "Wikipedia is not typical"] which focuses on this, as if somehow wikis in general existed solely to facilitate text interchange among their users. Which might be true if wikis were all dating services, or intended to serve purposes like those of [[NetNews]]. However, this is to miss the whole point of [[collaborative editing technology]], which is to produce some output that represents something that is "more true than not". In real wikis, goodwill among contributors is a side effect of dedication to a common goal. In bad ones, it is required even under extreme circumstances of unethical behaviour, e.g. [[echo chamber]]s.

Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", R. K. called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]].

As a concrete example of the tyranny which exists at the Wikipedia; note that there are no rules requiring "proof" (of any sort) before a user is banned -- there are only guidelines and such, but not actual rules. The result is that it is the responsiblity of a banned user to prove their innocence; and somehow defend themselves against the cabal.

In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Users critical of the project are sometimes blocked from discussions. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests that power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. and that people who are qualified or interested in administrative functions may hold different interests from the people who are the best contributors (see ''[[community point of view]]'' and ''[[systemic bias]]'').

Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..

Finally, Wikipedia has no full text search facility, due to deficiencies of the [[mediawiki]] software.
:You can do full text searches using '''Google''' or '''Yahoo'''. Full text searching from the [[MySQL]] database became possible starting from version 4.0, which is now in use at [[Wikipedia]], but the lack of this feature is surely related to the heavy load on the servers - the [[Wikimedia]] foundation not having sufficient trust or resources to actually buy sufficient hardware.

===Usefulness:===

Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops.

Wikipedia's article on itself [[w:Wikipedia]] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta" (see [[m:]]), and this debates issues of [[m:governance]], but the difference between such proposals and real [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] are great indeed.

It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing.

There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself.

In general, Wikipedia has a dishonest view of itself, and presents itself very dishonestly as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, when in fact it appears to do little or nothing to meet the editorial standards of a serious encyclopedia, and forces people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all, as the project turned to popular selection of contributors and casual verification of content, often on ad hominem reasoning toward authors, instead of a more formal fact-checking process. It should be seen as a project that helped build the [[GFDL text corpus]] in many languages, but is now in decline. Much as the attempt to build a "GNU Unix" built the body of [[GPL]] code.

Wikipedia, more so than other wiki service in early 2004, had become a main source for re-distribution of encyclopedic content by other sites, and thus expanded the reach of errors contained in its largely unverified content. Redistribution of Wikipedia-sourced material by another user-editable encyclopedia that could prove more popular with contributors might pose the greatest risk to control by Wikipedia's founding cadre.

===Relation to Consumerium===

The default position should be that Wikipedia's serious governance problems are so dangerous to Consumerium that they can't be repeated here. The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Consumerium]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Consumerium is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important governance decision that "X isn't what WE* do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, go away, we're doing it anyway". Or more neutrally, "that's evidence that X is the right thing to do". On [[governance]] specifically.

*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]]

----
===List of related wikipedia articles===

If you see something in wikipedia that could be useful, please put it here, if the Wikipedia article '''is not complete''' you should put it in the [[Research]] page - '''Lists and timelines are very welcome.'''

See also [[list of related Disinfopedia articles]], [[list of related Metaweb articles]], [[list of related Internet Encyclopedia articles]], [[list of related Everything2 articles]], [[list of Consumerium related articles]] (all external links)

Understanding buying choices and their effects:
* [[w:Conversion of units]]
* [[w:GTIN]]
* [[w:EAN]]
* [[w:UPC]]
* [[w:List of countries]]
* [[w:List of timelines]]
* [[w:List of reference tables]]
* [[w:List of stock exchanges]]
* [[w:List of supermarkets]]
* [[w:Commodity markets]] - buying on the largest scale
* [[w:Money]] - what it is and how it works, commodifying everything even you
* [[w:Tariff]]

Understanding moral choices as expressed in the marketplace:
* [[w:list of ethics articles]] - why would you care what you buy?
* [[w:Globalization]] makes it harder to know what your money does
* [[w:Transparency International]] tries to make it easier to find out
* [[w:Greenpeace]] has six campaigns to affect buying choices, and advocates
* [[w:Accounting reform]] which would make more liabilities visible to you
* [[w:Full cost accounting]] in particular would make waste visible
* [[w:Means of persuasion]], e.g. [[w:advertising]], [[w:propaganda]] of
** [[w:Productivism]] assumes that everything humans make is good
** [[w:Consumerism]] assumes that everything humans want is good

Directly relevant to consumerium mission, making actual moral buying choices:
* [[w:Slow Food]] - tied for third most relevant? buy local, organic, etc.
* [[w: Sweatshop]] - tied for third most relevant? often the target of
* [[w: Boycott]] - second most relevant? usually shorter term than
* [[w:Moral purchasing]] describes most exactly the consumerium.org mission
* [[w:Local food]]

Other
* [[w:brand management|brand management]], how products are positioned and gain identity. The "Wikipedia" brand has this concern too, leading to:
* tracking of [[w:Wikipedia:Self-references|Self-references]] of the project to itself, which [[self-references|Consumerium needs too]] so it knows what it is and is becoming.
* [[w:Wikipedia:itself]] which is the view of the english version of [[Wikipedia]] from '''Wikipedia, itself,''' and is used to mediate disputes about its direction and purposes.

See also: [[Wikipedia Red Faction]]

Talk:Wiki corruption

2004-09-09T18:26:37Z

Cleaner:

"Development wiki is not the place for stating claims of corruption unless they are somehow tied to the possibilities of [[CGO]] becoming corrupt in some way that could be avoided by looking at predece) "

:Which is EXACTLY, OBVIOUSLY what Wikimedia corruption is doing: they are leaning on you to censor things, they are sending their [[sysop power structure]] over to interfere, they are giving vandalbot code to those who will use it against [[Recyclopedia]] and other projects that could have been useful background material projects.

:If you want alleged Wikimedia corruption to be muted as a [[Develop Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]] issue, then, simply, redirect [[w:]] to [[Wikinfo]] not [[Wikipedia]]. Until then, [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] is just as corrupt as [[Wikimedia]] since it accepts censorshop of [[w:Genuine Progress Indicator]] and other essential material, without which you can't hope to have a serious discussion of [[quality of life]] or how [[moral purchasing]] enhances it.

:These people are the ENEMY of life on this planet, that's what you don't seem to understand. They are not even friends to each other, notice the Wales versus Secretlondon affair, or the way Sokolov eventually disavowed himself of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]]. They are sociopaths, not people you can make friends with, just people who are friendly to you to get what THEY want. Wake up:

:To them, corruption is as natural as breatheing. They are totally unable to see their own [[systemic bias]] and all actions they take, no matter how stupid or unaccountable, are justified by "following rules" or some such robotic ideal.

:In other words, the Wikimedia corruption is spreading HERE: some suggestions on how to stop it:

#redirect [[w:]] to [[Wikinfo]]
#invite entire [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] into [[CGO]]
#pursue an anti-[[systemic bias]] project such as deliberate recruitment of [[developing nation]]s people to undo lies about them in the [[GFDL corpus]] or cognitive scientists and psychologists to examine claims made in [[w:physics]] and such articles in the [[GFDL corpus]]
#the previously discussed libel suit, [[class action suit]]s, and etc. all motivated by proof that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] and propagates [[libel]].
# [[politics as usual]] - insider articles panning the [[clique]] that runs those projects into the ground - see [[English Wikipedia User Richardchilton]] for a prototype of the type of article that could appear in [[w:The Guardian]].

Wikimedia corruption

2004-09-09T18:25:28Z

Cleaner:

#REDIRECT [[Corruption]]

Talk:Wikipedia (Reds)

2004-09-09T18:23:51Z

Cleaner:

Wikimedia

2004-09-09T16:53:33Z

Cleaner:

Wikimedia

2004-09-09T16:50:35Z

Cleaner:

Wikipedia (neutral)

2004-09-09T16:48:16Z

Cleaner:

Wikipedia (neutral)

2004-09-09T16:46:16Z

Cleaner:

Wikipedia (neutral)

2004-09-09T16:45:02Z

Cleaner:

Wikipedia (neutral)

2004-09-09T16:41:45Z

Cleaner:

Wikipedia (neutral)

2004-09-09T16:40:57Z

Cleaner:

Wikipedia

2004-09-09T16:38:21Z

Cleaner:

*delete this page
*move [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] here
*delete [[Wikipedia (neutral)]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2004-09-09T16:36:24Z

Cleaner: moved to "Talk:Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)"

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)]]

Wikipedia

2004-09-09T16:36:22Z

Cleaner: moved to "Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)"

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)]]

Claims of corruption

2004-09-08T23:22:14Z

Cleaner:

[[Wikipedia]] (www.wikipedia.org) is a "copyleft" encyclopedia that is collaboratively developed using wiki software. It is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. Wikipedia is managed and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

This article claims the encyclopedic project was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] from the actual [[GFDL corpus]] contributors in 2003.

Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to those contributors and users, and to be serving the agenda of its [[sysop power structure]] instead. ''Many'' specific allegations have been posted to the [[Wikipedia mailing list]], ''far'' too many to list here, and these seem to have increased in number over time. This list includes only the most egregious and legally actionable allegations:

Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes:

=== structural corruption ===

*that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] notably re [[attribution]] and access to source text and all improvements. ''See [[text liberation]] for more on this issue.'' Access to source text is provided at http://download.wikimedia.org/ even for those users who cannot [[Export-import|export]] due to [[IP block]]; however the use of these sources requires significantly more technical skill.

*no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board"; while [[Michael Davis]] is not a developer, nor a sysop nor even an editor, he is also not an active end user or an advocate of [[usability]] - in fact his only qualification is his connection to [[Bomis]] corporation.

*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;

*'''Wikimedia Foundation''' not consulted when legally important decisions made, e.g. [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000384.html 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.

*''allegation:'' users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count"

::False. These are discussed on mailing lists, on meta and more and more on irc. Granted, information feedback is far from perfect. In any cases, the development of MediaWiki is not in the hand of Wikimedia itself. So, this argument, if it were true, would not be the proof of Wikimedia corruption.

:::Mailing list users are not wiki users. This has been downgraded to an allegation since it is contingent on realizing that.

*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;

::Granted, 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.

:::We are not your lawyer. We are not your advisor. Ignore this allegation at your peril.

...an issue debated on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] but overruled by legal expert Jim Wales as per usual

::An accusation made with no back up links has no validity and cannot be questionned. It consequently constitute defaming. "As per usual" is a fallacious argument as well, with no source.

:::[[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]].

*''Allegation:'' [[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims

::Beside of being made with no source, I guess that again, this is not a proof of Wikimedia corruption either.

:::It is quite easy to find claims that "person X is user Y wrote text Z" all over the place, and since "Z" is often characterized in ways like "untrue", "false", "[[spun death threat|death threat]]", etc., that is a very serious allegation against the character of X, especially if the claims that "X is Y" or "Y wrote Z" are themselves based only on an [[echo chamber]]. Many innocent people are being attacked and libelled by slack enforcement of [[standard of evidence]] on [[Wikipedia mailing list]] and other Wiki-media run by you.

*''Allegation:'' tolerance of extensive [[sysop vandalism]] by almost the entire [[sysop power structure]]

::Do not confuse Wikimedia and Jimbo here. Jimbo has a moral weight on all of us editors, so is in effect tolerant of most matters, which allowed the creativity of all editors to fully express. As for Wikimedia board, it is not supposed to have impact on how the projects are run at the fine level. It is not its role. Its role is to be a legal structure to collect money and decide of its uses. It is also to own the plysical architecture, and to legally protect the project if necessary. It also plays a role in promotion. It does not have the right to take care of fine in-project management. Consequently, this tolerance by Jimbo ay be good or bad, but is no sign of corruption, and is irrelevant to Wikimedia itself.

:::Oh, so it only "collects money" and spends it, and covers up the fact that the actual mission that motivates the cash and content contributors is being constantly undermined by a [[clique]]? That is not governance, it is corrupt.

*''Allegation:'' tolerance of extensive [[sysop vigilantiism]] and contemplation of more serious [[developer vigilantiism]]

::Same answer. Will add that Wikimedia can protect what it physically own. I see not where the corruption stands here either

:::It does not "physically own" [[GFDL corpus]] contributions and has no right to restrict access to them under that [[share-alike]] license. Each [[mirror]] has the same right to access the same contributions without [[Wikipedia]]'s own [[sysop power structure]] politics undoing improvements and corrections that are provably improving the corpus.

*''Allegation:'' [[ad hominem delete]] without process, recently spread to [[Meta-Wikipedia]]

::Wikimedia is not responsible of micro-management. Board members have separate activity as board members and editors. You may accuse them of wrong doing, but it has no relation with Wikimedia itself. Jimbo basically never come to meta.

:::If you aren't responsible, you aren't responsible, period. When have you ever bothered to [[desysop]] someone for abuse of power? Hmm? Never? How are you doing [[governance]] then? That in itself is enough evidence of corruption: a "board" that actually does not supervise anything or anyone, and lets them run amok and do damage to the [[wiki mission]] via [[sysop vandalism]].

*''Allegation:'' [[ad hominem revert]] allowed to stand, threats of [[IP block]]s against any who reinstate them for whatever reason (including the fact that they are just correct)

::same comment. This is micro management. Plus, an accusation without sources has little value.

:::With literally dozens of liars and thugs and libellers and [[spin doctor]]s running around removing all links to the sources, deleting them, etc. it is your responsibility, not our responsibility, to keep these [[Talk page]] comments visible so that the people who issue the threats and make the ad hominem arguments can be kept out of the [[sysop power structure]]. It was MANY times restated by [[Erik Moeller]] that those who reinstated [[troll text]] would be themselves subject to [[IP block]]s. But Moeller remains a sysop so this must be considered "policy" on your part.

:::A fairly typical example: "15:22, 1 May 2004, Eloquence blocked Enforcer (expires indefinite) (contribs) (trolling / libel against Wikimedia foundation); ..."; Moeller is equating what he calls "[[trolling]]" with [[libel]] which is a legal threat and an attempt to perform [[social exclusion]]

*''Allegation:'' U.S. and U.K. centric editorial policy, set by people who speak only English

::false. I see not even the need to argue with this argument. Plus, Wikimedia does not drive editorial policy.

:::This is a lie. Obviously its policies determine who participates, and Wales writes Secretlondon, and [[trolls]] are "banned for life" and so forth, and all of this is MUCH more likely to happen to people who argue against the [[EPOV]] - never mind that they must do so in English.

*''Allegation:'' total censorship of [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] - not even history now visible due to intimidation of this group

::well not answer to this; know not enough about it.

:::Look up the various "requests" made of [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] and how his attempt to suggest [[wiki regime change]] was ultimately censored.

*''Allegation:'' attempted [[libel chill]] by labelling contents of this page "[[slander]]".

::By Wikimedia itself ?
::It is not slander ?

:::Parties friendly to [[Wikimedia]] are difficult to tell apart. Also it is hard to tell when someone has been intimidated into covering up your behaviour.

:::Read the definitions of [[libel]] and [[slander]] they are extremely clear.

*''Allegation:'' several attempts to revert these claims without answering to them, proving there is no adequate response

::I answered them. Will detail more if necessary. Fallacious argument : not answering is no proof the claims are correct.

:::This is the FIRST time ANY officer of [[Wikimedia]] has answered them, after DOZENS of attempts to simply censor them. Your own response is inadequate in many respects, and includes many attempts to [[spin]] things (like labelling as "allegation" the supporting [[fact]]s themselves which no one has disputed).

=== recently dealt with ===

*''Allegation:'' 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.

::have no idea of this myself.
::since it is the only recent issue listed, I fail to see well how corruption has increased overtime.

:::Read [[link transit]]

=== individual corruption by officers ===

*''Allegation:'' Wales intimidating [[English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]] and sending email (''allegation'':) to chill her editorial point of view and become pro-American like Mr. Wales

::Not a proof of Wikimedia corruption.
::Jimbo Wales, as any human, is entitled to have personal opinions. He rarely voice them on purpose, to avoid intimidating people as he knows he has a high moral weight in the community. He certainly did not do it on purpose. Jimbo apologized to SL immediately after, and again when the issue erupted again.
::chilling people is not usually a good weight to force them to become pro-american. This argument is real bad.
:::He should have said nothing. He should have known that to speak was to intimidate. He chose to pretend that he did not know that. The fact that [[Wikimedia]] does not restrain Mr. Wales is proof that it is merely his own vehicle.

*[[libel chill]] by Wales, attempting to silence critics of his decisions and appointments, or even just those who point out [[GFDL violation]]s by Wikimedia, e.g. accusing people who say [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] as being guilty of '''libel against Wikimedia''' on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]]

::uh ? Where ?

:::There was a specific link to a specific mailing list posting, deleted in one of the usual attacks on this page. Look it up yourself. It's not an allegation, it's a simple fact, Wales said he wanted people to file complaints with Florida's [[charitable status]] regulator so he could sue them for libel. That is libel chill, and it is not allegation.

*[[Daniel Mayer]] was appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer on July 4, 2004; ''Allegation:'' this individual is hardly credible as a reporter of facts or a guardian of any principles, given his long standing participation in [[echo chamber]] and [[libel pit]] activities; it strongly detracts from credibility of [[Wikimedia]] and [[Wikipedia]] when such a person is in charge of the books

::Certainly, Daniel is not credible in your eyes, but is credible in other people eyes. If credibility is lower for some people, well, that is unfortunate, but not anyone can be pleased. Credibility, still, is one thing, corruption is another. Do you have proof of corruption from him ? If not, this should be moved as a lack of credibility claim, not a corruption proof.

:::It is not a question of whose "eyes" are involved: Mayer is objectively guilty of [[libel]] and of using false claims to police to intimidate people. You have accepted an incompetent and petulant person in a position of authority, and that is corrupt in itself. Why? Could it be that no one who is competent will take on the task he offered to take on?

''For issues with developers and others without official status, see [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]]. The most egregious of these is:''

*release of carefully guarded [[MediaWiki]] [[bot]] code - used as a [[vandalbot]] for [[technological escalation]] against [[Recyclopedia]] and threatened against [[Wikinfo]] - post facto, attempted coverup with extremely selective event reporting in [[Wikipedia]], ''Allegation:'' false claims in the Wikipedia article nominally about Recyclopedia but with no mention of [[denial of service attack]]s or [[vandalbot]]s that were the actual proximate cause of it becoming unusable, and the clearest example yet of intimidation.

------

''official response from [[Wikimedia]]:''

I suggest that all unsupported arguments given as proof are removed.

:Here is the deal: the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] agrees to take legal action against all who publish [[libel]] via its media, or who have done so, starting with [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Daniel Mayer]] who should recieve stern official warning letters from you immediately. They are removed from all positions of [[authority]] and publicly shamed. Wales apologizes to various people he has intimidated. All remaining developers and sysops swear in writing that they had nothing to do with [[vandalbot]] or [[denial of service attack]]s or the [[vandalism]] of [[troll-friendly]] wikis unfriendly to [[Wikimedia]] including [[Consumerium]] and [[Recyclopedia]]. These are collected in writing and the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] states as policy that no one who engages in any kind of [[technological escalation]] against [[Wikimedia]] critics is sanctioned by it or will ever receive any support from it. THEN we will bother listing all the claims, as we will be reasonably sure that they will stand without attacks nor censorship. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE? Complaints directly to Florida regulators. The choice is yours. This is the only deal anyone will offer you.

Some of your claims may be right (though, I am not really certain which are), and if so, I think your feedback is interesting, but all the other ones loosen the credibility of those which may be correct.

:We have not had the luxury of documenting them all without harassment and censorship. When we do, the final and fully documented version will go straight to Washington DC to prevent or end any federal [[charitable status]] for [[Wikimedia]]. We will not be consulting with those who harass us, since we have been harassed enough to require there be [[no cooperation with authority]].

Besides, keeping unsupported, or even defaming claims in this page, and in others, is threatening Juxo project credibility and viability. I recommand that you consider this issue with due respect.

Anthere.

:The threats come from an unaccountable organization that covers up its own behaviour. A bad example. To assert that there are "Threats" to "credibility" is simply to assert that you will use [[Wikipedia]] to continue to spread lies and [[libel]] about those who expose [[Wikimedia]] for what it is, a false front. To assert that its "viability" is at stake is to assert that you are going to pressure [[MediaWiki]] developers or others to stop supporting it.

:[[Trolls]] suggest that you, Anthere, as an honourable person defending a dishonourable group, RESIGN, and cite the failure of [[Wikimedia]] to deal with its various corruption and accountability problems as the reason for doing so.

Consumerium:Proposed deletions

2004-09-08T23:16:33Z

Cleaner:

Place '''proposed deletions''' on this page with a rationale. They will stand for at least a week before any action is taken. Elaborate arguments under each page name in point form; Try to stick to [[TIPAESA]] form or a subset of it.

Proposals for deletion made September 8, for action September 15:

*[[troll droppings]] - redirect used exactly once seemingly only to degrade [[troll text]]; unwisely applying an overly organic [[conceptual metaphor]]; one ought not to confuse mythological creatures that have [[no body]] with real living creatures that do, and which leave droppings; presumably it is only one's [[some body|non-troll body]] that can leave any fertilizer around

*[[Craig Hubley]] - article was deemed too inaccurate for [[Wikipedia]] and is probably not relevant to [[wiki mission]]; also there is apparently some kind of policy against pages "about [[person X]]" though some have advocated that there be exceptions for people relevant to specific [[worst cases]] and [[threats]]. Unless this person represents such a worst case or threat, which would have to be proven by documenting a case study or [[design fiction]] that made some reference to him, that was more credible with him in the story than with anyone else, his name is irrelevant to the wiki and should be deleted. If important it can re-emerge in the [[Research Wiki]].

::[[Talk:Craig Hubley]] might stand however as it has some useful accusations and comment in it. If we consider [[suing for funding]] to be useful that is.

*[[article hub]] - meaningless name: everything is an article and any article can be a hub to reach others; move the content to various other articles on the specific topics, as part of streamlining of [[Consumerium Process]] pages, and attempt to outline what a [[Consumerium Research pilot]] and working [[Research Wiki]] would look like

*[[Ending Wikimedia]] - not a [[Consumerium]] related matter. We aren't in the business of scrutinizing [[non-profit]] organisations. We are leaving it up to each [[consumer]] to decide what organisations to trust and what not. See [[Preferences]] on this --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:23, 8 Sep 2004 (EEST)

::Counter-argument: unless we [[end Wikimedia]], it will remain a platform for various attacks on [[Consumerium]]. The people who *promote* corporate power at [[Wikipedia]] are exactly the people who will become [[funded troll]]s that will fill [[Research Wiki]] with pro-corporate propaganda or censor the truth about corporate activities. Wikimedia is like the Al Qaeda of journalism: it trains people to engage in mindless attacks with no potential for any dialogue.

*[[Suing for funding]] - this is total bullshit and is degrading to think that anyone serious about our goals would suggest such. anyways, these types of thing are not for the anonymous contributors who revel in being [[trolls]].

::Your reasoning is flawed: MANY nonprofits are funded from the proceeds of lawsuits against unethical journalists. MANY. Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley are only one good example.

::If this goes, kill [[talk:Craig Hubley]] too as the only reason to keep it around is to sue for funding.

*[[Gus Kouwenhoven]], '''unaccountably deleted''', apparently a personal friend of someone who thinks [[sysop vandalism]] is appropriate and warranted to protect the reputation of this most excellent person Mr Kouwenhoven who has so many rights that he can pretty much wipe out a whole continent before anyone at [[Consumerium]] would ever notice

*[[Fox News point of view]], '''unaccountably deleted''', apparently by someone who thinks that it isn't important or biasing that [[Wikimedia]] and [[Bomis]] are often accused of this view, e.g. by [[English Wikipedia User Richardchilton]], or that it's a major focus of debate about media in the USA.

*[[Alleged Wikimedia corruption]], recommandation.