Consumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]

Propaganda

2004-09-06T18:06:15Z

Trolls:

'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]], it's a response to mindless assertions like that [[usurper]]s can somehow be trusted as '''steward'''s.

[[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.).

[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. In general its only real response is to encourage [[vandalism]] of pages like this.

[[w:Nazi Wikipedia]] and [[w:Soviet Wikipedia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]]. This is not necessarily evidence of evil in people, but, perhaps, willingness to go along with evil out of fear. For these reasons:

In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted.

It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[trollsturbation]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Some trolls are not ethical]] or others listed in [[alleged troll corruption]].

A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now: learn to take all criticism in stride, and all bias likewise.

''If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.''

== External links ==

*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]

Wikimedia

2004-09-06T18:01:36Z

Trolls:

Propaganda

2004-09-06T17:34:54Z

Trolls:

'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]]. [[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.).

[[w:Nazi Germany]] considers any discussion of [[alleged troll corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. Of course [[Wikimedia]] and [[w:Soviet Russia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[evil troll power structure]].

In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[trollsturbation]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[some trolls are not ethical]] or others listed in [[alleged troll corruption]].

A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[steward]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Wikipedia is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[evil trolls]], help it do so, the [[steward]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now: learn to take all criticism in stride, and all bias likewise.

''If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.''

== External links ==

*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]

Propaganda

2004-09-06T17:15:06Z

Trolls: revert apparent troll vandalism by troll power structure of Consumerium trying to trivialize claims about itself, as usual - this is simple and obvious vandalism

'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]]. [[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.).

[[Soviet Nazi Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. Of course [[trolls]] believed the same things of itselfs, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]].

In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].

A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now.

== External links ==

*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]

Propaganda

2004-09-06T16:56:17Z

Trolls:

'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]]. [[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.).

[[Soviet Nazi Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. Of course [[trolls]] believed the same things of itselfs, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]].

In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].

A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now.

== External links ==

*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]

Claims of corruption

2004-09-06T16:35:35Z

Trolls:

'''N.B. there are certain [[evil trolls]] who assert that Wikimedia may not be corrupt. Take care while reading this page to not fall prey to their [[propaganda]].'''

[[[[Wikipedia]] is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] in 2003. Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to contributors and users. Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes:

=== structural corruption ===

*many [[GFDL violation]]s notably re [[attribution]] and access to source text and all improvements. ''See [[text liberation]] for more on this issue
*no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board"; no [[independent board]] members not affiliated with operations
*'''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, the Jimmy Wales unilaterally "hereby authorize [[Andrew Lih]] to make a statement on our behalf", based on [[usual happy NPOV talk]]. This was less than one day after the "election" of [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.
*false claims added to [[Wikimedia]] article here, and true claims removed; several attempts to revert these claims without answering to them, proving there is no adequate response
*[[technological escalation]] against [[Recyclopedia]] and threatened against [[Wikinfo]] - attempted coverup with extremely selective event reporting in [[Wikipedia]], false claims in article nominally about Recyclopedia but seeming to serve only to spread the story that did not include [[denial of service attack]]s with [[vandalbot]]s
*users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count"
*solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines - may violate US federal law
*[[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vandalism]] most notably by [[Auntie Angela]] and [[Hephaestos]]
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vigilantiism]] and contemplation of more serious [[developer vigilantiism]]
*[[ad hominem delete]] without process, recently spread to [[Meta-Wikipedia]]
*[[ad hominem revert]] allowed to stand
*U.S. and U.K. centric editorial policy, set by people who speak only English
*total censorship of [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] - not even history now visible due to intimidation of this group
*attempted [[libel chill]] by labelling contents of this page "[[slander]]".

=== recently dealt with ===

*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.

=== individual corruption by officers ===

*Wales intimidating [[English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]] for being "too anti-American"
*[[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]]
*[[Daniel Mayer]] was appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer on July 4, 2004; 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

''For issues with developers and others without official status, see [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]].''

Claims of corruption

2004-09-06T16:12:56Z

Trolls:

It is axiomatic that [[Wikimedia]] is corrupt. Any attempt to deny this [[fundamental law]] will result in the perpetrator being [[driven off by trolls]].

Wikimedia

2004-09-06T16:04:02Z

Trolls:

Propaganda

2004-09-06T15:47:36Z

Trolls: