https://develop.consumerium.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=142.177.109.161&feedformat=atomConsumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T18:36:21ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.6https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Trust&diff=14136Trust2004-09-10T00:02:43Z<p>142.177.109.161: references</p>
<hr />
<div>Some [[CSCW]] researchers investigate '''trust''' within and between teams of people and how it can be used as a tool in determining how information is actually shared between members. <br />
<br />
Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):<br />
<br />
*[[repute]]: "information and person credibility assessment and usage",<br />
*[[defer]]ence relations: "trusted information routing discovery mechanisms,"<br />
*[[faction]]s: "the use of trust as a tool for decision making regarding information sharing." - [http://www.stephenmarsh.ca/CSCW04/index.html]<br />
<br />
"In general, the disclosure of information, how it propagates through networks of people and machines, and how trust can play a valuable part in, amongst other things, what is disclosed, to whom, when, and for what duration." - by [[Stephen Marsh]] of the [[National Research Council of Canada]].<br />
<br />
*[http://www.stephenmarsh.ca/CHI04/ CHI 04 papers on trust] and how it is abused, e.g. by [[sysop power structure]].<br />
<br />
=== at Consumerium ===<br />
<br />
'''Trust''' for our purposes can be divided into [[found trust]], [[built trust]] and [[grown trust]]. It can be measured as "[[social capital]]" but not very reliably, as usually a [[faction]] gets involved in what behaviour is seen as admirable or reliable or even predictable, and is certainly required to create [[reputation]].<br />
<br />
[[Troll]]s tend to challenge prevailing ideas about trust - on [[large public wiki]]s they very often succeed in reversing people's beliefs about reputation and trustworthiness, by using a sort of [[scientific method]] of baiting [[sysop]]s. This works quite reliably and may bring about [[regime change]].<br />
<br />
In response to 18th century trolls, who created the French Revolution and American Revolution, [[governance organization]]s began to use [[distrust]] more explicitly, to prevent trust from becoming too centralized. This is probably what the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] should do on day one, instead of repeating all of political evolution as [[Wikipedia]] is doomed to do, wasting years trying to deny that [[politics as usual]] is also inevitable and that [[factionalism]] is probably good too, when it's correctly supported and each element of the [[political spectrum]] has their own role & [[faction]] to protect [[common interests]].<br />
<br />
A [[legal trust]] like a [[patent pool]] is a different question entirely.<br />
<br />
See [[w:trust]] for a more general discussion of both ideas of trust.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Libel_by_Wikimedia&diff=16198Libel by Wikimedia2004-09-09T23:02:56Z<p>142.177.109.161: time to start looking for lawyers, these suits are inevitable, and CGO might as well profit from them</p>
<hr />
<div>While [[libel against Wikimedia]] seems legally not to be able to exist, the potential for a [[libel suit]] alleging '''libel ''by'' Wikimedia''' to seek damages from the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] is quite real. Consider that:<br />
<br />
*[[Wikimedia]] publishes material in many languages all over the world. The odds of there being at least one libellous statement in that [[corpus]] at any one time is 100%. This is a [[w:glass house]] as far as libel suits are concerned.<br />
<br />
*[[Wikimedia]] publishes several [[vile mailing list]]s seemingly ''devoted'' to lies about its opponents, and even its supporters. It is sometimes described as a "[[libel pit]]". Over time, however, [[James Wales]] and others of his friends always prevail due to his ownership status, and his final editorial decisions always stand. Accordingly he or [[Bomis]] (which controls the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] majority) is definitely the legal publisher, at least of these lists.<br />
<br />
*[[Wikimedia]] has appointed at least one person who engages habitually in the above behaviour to the post of Treasurer. This person is also the founder of the institution! Accordingly, funds donated to the Foundation are spent on the furtherance of libellous statements under the supervision of the chief libeller. It does not help the situation that this person may also be guilty of filing [[false police report]]s, which is [[perjury]] if done [[under oath]].<br />
<br />
*[[False and unsubstantiated claims]] stored in [[Wikimedia]] archives and sources are spread all over the net via [[mirror]]s, and used constantly in ongoing attacks on the [[reputation]] of parties who it thinks oppose it or its objectives. Even if these contain obvious false statements, or allegations as if they were fact, they are never corrected or properly marked as such, and are available for use in any [[smear campaign]] that anyone in the world cares to engage in. What is more, as they spread, these packaged lies tend to expand with further allegations attached, and encourage more casual use of names and damage to reputations of parties otherwise uninvolved. There is probably no clearer basis for a [[libel suit]] than that!<br />
<br />
::Furthermore, [[vandalbot]] code is likewise distributed by [[developer vigilantiism|Mediawiki developers]] and known to be used in [[denial of service attack]]s, e.g. on [[Recyclopedia]] - a [[crime by Wikimedia|different and serious criminal matter]].<br />
<br />
It may not matter, legally, whether any of this is done with knowledge of Wikimedia or not. They are legally responsible to supervise what they have published and to take steps to remove materials that are provably false, libellous or otherwise violate the law in the places where the material is visible, received by users.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Libel_against_Wikimedia&diff=15883Libel against Wikimedia2004-09-09T22:55:33Z<p>142.177.109.161: many have done</p>
<hr />
<div>While '''libel against Wikimedia''' is probably legally impossible (due to [[Florida]] law, see below), claims that such lawsuits will be pursued (using donated and public money presumably - what other money does Wikimedia have?) constitute [[libel chill]] very often on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]]. With no real prospect of gaining damages for the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] there is no way to interpret such a use of funds as anything but [[Wikimedia corruption]], should it occur, advancing the interests of officers not that of the foundation itself.<br />
<br />
=== libel proof ===<br />
<br />
Those making true statements about organizations with very poor reputations are libel-proof under Florida law. In a 1999 case involving a [[perjury|convicted criminal]] seeking parole, his "reputation before the article was so poor, and that the undisputedly true statements in the article were so harmful, that he could not be further injured by supposedly false statements about his criminal past." - [http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?ID=56&Article=164]<br />
<br />
Since Wikimedia often engages in criminal [[libel]] (usually in the context of [[outing|trying to expose its enemies]]) and authorizes various forms of confiscation of property (donated works of [[GFDL contributor]]s) with [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|no legal basis for claiming ownership or control]], it would seem quite difficult to be guilty of libel for simply saying this is so. As a great many people have done.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libel_by_Wikimedia&diff=16200Talk:Libel by Wikimedia2004-09-09T22:53:55Z<p>142.177.109.161: asking opinions</p>
<hr />
<div>Is it better to [[end Wikimedia]] by exposing them ''before'' they get major funding, or, to let them get their funding and then [[suing for funding|sue, sue, sue]] to get that funding directed into more reasonable and responsible projects?</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Libel_suit&diff=16199Libel suit2004-09-09T22:52:48Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''libel suit''' is a legal claim that [[libel]] has occurred and done damage to someone's [[repute]]. See [[libel by Wikimedia]] for a very likely example.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Libel_by_Wikimedia&diff=5241Libel by Wikimedia2004-09-09T22:51:34Z<p>142.177.109.161: more law</p>
<hr />
<div>While [[libel against Wikimedia]] seems legally not to be able to exist, the potential for a [[libel suit]] alleging '''libel ''by'' Wikimedia''' to seek damages from the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] is quite real. Consider that:<br />
<br />
*[[Wikimedia]] publishes material in many languages all over the world. The odds of there being at least one libellous statement in that [[corpus]] is 100%.<br />
<br />
*[[Wikimedia]] publishes a [[vile mailing list]] seemingly ''devoted'' to lies about its opponents, and even its supporters. It is sometimes described as a "[[libel pit]]". Over time, however, [[James Wales]] and others of his friends always prevail due to his ownership status, and his final editorial decisions always stand. Accordingly he or [[Bomis]] (which controls the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] majority) is definitely the legal publisher, at least of these lists.<br />
<br />
*[[False and unsubstantiated claims]] stored in [[Wikimedia]] archives and sources are spread all over the net via [[mirror]]s, and used constantly in ongoing attacks on the [[reputation]] of parties who it thinks oppose it or its objectives. <br />
<br />
::''Furthermore, [[vandalbot]] code is likewise distributed and used in [[denial of service attack]]s - a [[crime by Wikimedia|different and criminal matter]].'' <br />
<br />
It may not matter, legally, whether this is done with knowledge of Wikimedia or not. They are legally responsible to supervise what they have published and to take steps to remove materials that are provably false, libellous or otherwise violate the law in the places where the material is visible, received by users.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Libel_against_Wikimedia&diff=5240Libel against Wikimedia2004-09-09T22:42:43Z<p>142.177.109.161: you want to talk law? here's the REAL law</p>
<hr />
<div>While '''libel against Wikimedia''' is probably legally impossible (due to [[Florida]] law, see below), claims that such lawsuits will be pursued (using donated and public money presumably - what other money does Wikimedia have?) constitute [[libel chill]] very often on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]]. With no real prospect of gaining damages for the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] there is no way to interpret such a use of funds as anything but [[Wikimedia corruption]], should it occur, advancing the interests of officers not that of the foundation itself.<br />
<br />
=== libel proof ===<br />
<br />
Those making true statements about organizations with very poor reputations are libel-proof under Florida law. In a 1999 case involving a [[perjury|convicted criminal]] seeking parole, his "reputation before the article was so poor, and that the undisputedly true statements in the article were so harmful, that he could not be further injured by supposedly false statements about his criminal past." - [http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?ID=56&Article=164]<br />
<br />
Since Wikimedia often engages in criminal [[libel]] (usually in the context of [[outing|trying to expose its enemies]]) and authorizes various forms of confiscation of property (donated works of [[GFDL contributor]]s) with [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|no legal basis for claiming ownership or control]], it would seem quite difficult to be guilty of libel for simply saying this is so.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Identity_dispute&diff=5243Identity dispute2004-09-09T22:35:56Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Identity dispute''' arises when '''claimed identity cannot be verified''' ie. that someone is who they are claiming to be '''or''' when anonymous users (anonymous users may in fact be [[trolls]] that frequent the media in question) that '''refuse to take an identity''' thus existing (or perhaps non-existing) in the [[social club]] as non-persons or using [[pseudonyms]]<br />
<br />
== heading it off ==<br />
<br />
Collective and alleged and ambiguous identity are all problematic. The first step is an [[interwiki identity standard]] so that those who seek to claim a name on several [[large public wiki]]s can do so quickly and unambiguously - this avoids much confusion. As [[trolls]] enter, the second step is a way to place an [[IP number]] or [[login]] in a [[faction]], which it can move from to another faction, but may not totally defaction itself. That way, signals can be sent to others that this IP number originates [[controversial edit]]s consistently, so it can be watched by those who think so. It also makes the dispute a bit less personal and avoids [[repute]] debates and [[echo chamber]]s. [[Funded troll]]s would likely require a third step involving some [[sysop power structure]] under supervision of [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].<br />
<br />
See [[Noise vs. Signal]] for the different approach to take in each wiki - research needs a somewhat looser standard than the final published information that becomes the [[Consumerium buying signal]].<br />
<br />
==Troll point of view==<br />
<br />
This can be seen as a subset of a [[political dispute]] in that a political dispute may involve accusations of real or manufactured identity disputes as a form of political battle<br />
<br />
Some [[trolls]] claim that some ideologies claim that identity and politics itself are just forms of [[neutrality dispute]]. <br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] consider the '''whole concept of identity dispute stupid''', and it is the reason for the many problems of such projects as [[Wikipedia]], which accept and promote such ideologies, and attract believers in them, who eventually degrade and destroy the capacity of the project itself to deal with political dispute, and promote noxious personalities. <br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] promote the [[political virtues]] instead, and reject identity that is not [[factionally defined]].<br />
<br />
Failing to recognize the concept of an '''identity dispute''' leads directly to [[sysop vandalism]] as [[revert]]s occur simply because of what sysops believe or suspect about identity. <br />
<br />
This is one of many reasons why [[trolls]] advocate ''foment ambiguity'' and not [[use real names]], particularly if ''constant pseudonyms are allowed''.<br />
<br />
See [[conceptual metaphor]] for the "green" and [[God's Eye View]] for the "grey" way to settle such debates. The latter leads to trust in one [[GodKing]]. The former may lead to a greater role for [[trolls]]. There are reasons to avoid either extreme. <br />
<br />
==Non-troll point of view==<br />
Probably the most realistic view is that identity and other politics disputes are inevitable and normal and part of language and linguistic relationships, but they have to be contained using some methods such as '''different levels of identification''' ranging from [[anonymous]] users to normal users to verified users.<br />
<br />
It is not good to let trolls totally escape all accountability and it is also not good to let [[outing|outing problems]] determine who participates in the [[Wikis]]. A troll's anonymity is approximately equal to a random stranger on the street. <br />
<br />
People who have no principles and accordingly spell principle "principal" as if they [[authoritarianism|still obeying authority in school]] assert that the "principal of [[w:immediate pursuit|immediate pursuit]] applies." This is doubtful, as "immediate pursuit is a legal principle describing rules of engagement to enter into combat with or forceably detain another." This has to do with [[body]] relations, not any kind of talk or interchanges of text.<br />
<br />
However, there may be some valid reasons to believe that edits under one [[IP address]] made to several [[large public wiki]]s in short succession might be the same person, e.g. to this page but also to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Immediate_pursuit&action=history the Wikipedia page on immediate pursuit]; Temporary actions might be taken on the basis of such conclusions. However, those with lasting impact on anyone's [[repute]] would be extremely unwise to undertake on such shallow evidence.<br />
<br />
It could however be a deliberate [[alleged and collective identity]] tactic to trick [[sysop power structure]] into doing something very foolish.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Identity_dispute&diff=16197Talk:Identity dispute2004-09-09T22:33:53Z<p>142.177.109.161: why discuss the law or principles with people who have so few principles they cannot even spell the word properly? ("principal"? LOL)</p>
<hr />
<div>who is lecturing who on "The Law"? A [[perjury]] artist, perhaps?</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Identity_dispute&diff=5238Identity dispute2004-09-09T22:32:12Z<p>142.177.109.161: this "principal" (you moron) does not apply, immediate pursuit is about body relations in physical circumstances; besides which the assumptions made that way are still nothing but allegations</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Identity dispute''' arises when '''claimed identity cannot be verified''' ie. that someone is who they are claiming to be '''or''' when anonymous users (anonymous users may in fact be [[trolls]] that frequent the media in question) that '''refuse to take an identity''' thus existing (or perhaps non-existing) in the [[social club]] as non-persons or using [[pseudonyms]]<br />
<br />
== heading it off ==<br />
<br />
Collective and alleged and ambiguous identity are all problematic. The first step is an [[interwiki identity standard]] so that those who seek to claim a name on several [[large public wiki]]s can do so quickly and unambiguously - this avoids much confusion. As [[trolls]] enter, the second step is a way to place an [[IP number]] or [[login]] in a [[faction]], which it can move from to another faction, but may not totally defaction itself. That way, signals can be sent to others that this IP number originates [[controversial edit]]s consistently, so it can be watched by those who think so. It also makes the dispute a bit less personal and avoids [[repute]] debates and [[echo chamber]]s. [[Funded troll]]s would likely require a third step involving some [[sysop power structure]] under supervision of [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].<br />
<br />
See [[Noise vs. Signal]] for the different approach to take in each wiki - research needs a somewhat looser standard than the final published information that becomes the [[Consumerium buying signal]].<br />
<br />
==Troll point of view==<br />
<br />
This can be seen as a subset of a [[political dispute]] in that a political dispute may involve accusations of real or manufactured identity disputes as a form of political battle<br />
<br />
Some [[trolls]] claim that some ideologies claim that identity and politics itself are just forms of [[neutrality dispute]]. <br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] consider the '''whole concept of identity dispute stupid''', and it is the reason for the many problems of such projects as [[Wikipedia]], which accept and promote such ideologies, and attract believers in them, who eventually degrade and destroy the capacity of the project itself to deal with political dispute, and promote noxious personalities. <br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] promote the [[political virtues]] instead, and reject identity that is not [[factionally defined]].<br />
<br />
Failing to recognize the concept of an '''identity dispute''' leads directly to [[sysop vandalism]] as [[revert]]s occur simply because of what sysops believe or suspect about identity. <br />
<br />
This is one of many reasons why [[trolls]] advocate ''foment ambiguity'' and not [[use real names]], particularly if ''constant pseudonyms are allowed''.<br />
<br />
See [[conceptual metaphor]] for the "green" and [[God's Eye View]] for the "grey" way to settle such debates. The latter leads to trust in one [[GodKing]]. The former may lead to a greater role for [[trolls]]. There are reasons to avoid either extreme. <br />
<br />
==Non-troll point of view==<br />
Probably the most realistic view is that identity and other politics disputes are inevitable and normal and part of language and linguistic relationships, but they have to be contained using some methods such as '''different levels of identification''' ranging from [[anonymous]] users to normal users to verified users.<br />
<br />
It is not good to let trolls totally escape all accountability and it is also not good to let [[outing|outing problems]] determine who participates in the [[Wikis]]. A troll's anonymity is approximately equal to a random stranger on the street. <br />
<br />
People who have no principles and accordingly spell principle "principal" as if they [[authoritarianism|still obeying authority in school]] assert that the "principal of [[w:immediate pursuit|immediate pursuit]] applies." This is doubtful, as "immediate pursuit is a legal principle describing rules of engagement to enter into combat with or forceably detain another." This has to do with [[body]] relations, not any kind of talk or interchanges of text.<br />
<br />
However, there may be some valid reasons to believe that edits under one [[IP address]] made to several [[large public wiki]]s in short succession might be the same person; It could however be a deliberate [[alleged and collective identity]] tactic to trick [[sysop power structure]] into doing something very foolish.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarianism&diff=16191Authoritarianism2004-09-09T22:00:41Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Authoritarianism''' is an [[ideology]] which promotes [[defer]]ence relations to create a stable [[command hierarchy]] at all costs. It is most often associated with ants, bees, or human [[militarism]] and [[fascism]].<br />
<br />
One symptom of this view is that it creates [[alleged faction]]s or claims of [[conspiracy]] and combines these into complex [[alleged and collective identity]] claims, e.g. [[w:Stalin]] was known to do this just prior to purges.<br />
<br />
In [[large public wiki]]s this ideology becomes the [[wiki ideology]] of [[sysop vandalism]], in which the futility of the [[wiki mission]] and the absolute domination of a controlling [[clique]] over that mission becomes obvious, even [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|in clear violation of license terms]].<br />
<br />
See [[anti-authoritarianism in practice]] for ways this ideology is resisted.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Alleged_faction&diff=16196Alleged faction2004-09-09T21:58:29Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT Talk:Wikipedia (142 trolls); this is the only alleged faction or conspiracy we are presently discussing, though Wikimedia's sysop power structure may be another example</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Talk:Wikipedia (142 trolls)]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_(142_trolls)&diff=16193Talk:Wikipedia (142 trolls)2004-09-09T21:57:13Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>Question: Should the title be [[Wikipedia (by 142 trolls)]] to stick to the [[attribution]] standard established by [[Creative Commons]], which uses the word "[[by]]" in all [[standard abbreviations]] to mean [[attribution]], e.g. abbreviation for [[parametric license]] [[CC-by-nc-sa]].<br />
<br />
:Answer: NO. There is no [[faction]] by the name "142 trolls" and it is solely a matter of [[alleged and collective identity]] that they are all the same. Also others have contributed to this commentary. Accordingly it is an [[alleged faction]], nothing more, and the "by" line is just inappropriate - actually "from 142 perspective" was probably more correct, if a bit redundant, though it too assumed this "perspective" into existence via [[God's Eye View]].<br />
<br />
:So, this page remains [[Wikipedia (142 trolls)]] for now, while [[Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton)]] can be properly attributed because of a [[self-claim]] Chilton made as to identity.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(by_Richard_Chilton)&diff=16189Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton)2004-09-09T21:54:30Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>"I would prefer however to be part of a wiki that is (or is more) [[user-owned, user-run, user-controlled]], and watch [[Wikipedia]] [[ending Wikimedia|crumble]] under the weight of its own [[authoritarianism]], [[central control|centrality of control]], [[due process|lack of working processes]] and so forth. In other words, I would prefer, as these alternative wikis become more viable and more popular, to contribute positively to them, have all the sane people slowly leave here (unless things are radically remade), and I myself start abandoning the struggle here so that only the [[Wikimedia|nutcases]] would take over." - [[English Wikipedia User Richardchilton]] commenting on the [[libel pit]] and [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|rolling GFDL violation]] that is '''Wikipedia'''.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(Richard_Chilton)&diff=16188Wikipedia (Richard Chilton)2004-09-09T21:54:22Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton); this is an author who claims his own attribution, not a faction, so "by" applies</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton)]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Research:claim_corruption&diff=16195Talk:Research:claim corruption2004-09-09T21:52:23Z<p>142.177.109.161: ok it'll only be worse to do later, applying attribution standard ... (by Richard Chilton)</p>
<hr />
<div>Suggest standard: To [[Research:claim corruption]] is a [[verb phrase]] describing what a user might want to do in one click as a [[command verb]], but [[claims of corruption]] is a [[noun phrase]] for the result).<br />
<br />
It may also be time to stop carrying on a dialogue in the [[page history]] that will make little sense later on when [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] is proven true and [[end Wikimedia|this nonsense is all over]]. AT that time, sticking up for them and against the analysis of [[Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton)]] will appear very foolish.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Research:claim_corruption&diff=5232Talk:Research:claim corruption2004-09-09T21:50:23Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>Suggest standard: To [[Research:claim corruption]] is a [[verb phrase]] describing what a user might want to do in one click as a [[command verb]], but [[claims of corruption]] is a [[noun phrase]] for the result).<br />
<br />
It may also be time to stop carrying on a dialogue in the [[page history]] that will make little sense later on when [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] is proven true and [[end Wikimedia|this nonsense is all over]]. AT that time, sticking up for them and against the analysis of [[Wikipedia (Richard Chilton)]] will appear very foolish.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Research:claim_corruption&diff=16194Research:claim corruption2004-09-09T21:47:08Z<p>142.177.109.161: suggest standard: "claim corruption" is a verb phrase describing what a user might want to do in one click as a command verb, but claims of corruption is a noun phrase for the result</p>
<hr />
<div>To '''claim corruption''' in [[Research Wiki]] follow this procedure:<br />
<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
See [[Research:claims of corruption]] for how to edit others' claims.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_(142_trolls)&diff=5234Talk:Wikipedia (142 trolls)2004-09-09T21:43:50Z<p>142.177.109.161: eg</p>
<hr />
<div>Should the title be [[Wikipedia (by 142 trolls)]] to stick to the [[attribution]] standard established by [[Creative Commons]], which uses the word "[[by]]" in all [[standard abbreviations]] to mean [[attribution]], e.g. abbreviation for [[parametric license]] [[CC-by-nc-sa]].</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_(142_trolls)&diff=5231Talk:Wikipedia (142 trolls)2004-09-09T21:41:16Z<p>142.177.109.161: naming convention suggested: Wikipedia (by 142 trolls)</p>
<hr />
<div>Should the title be [[Wikipedia (by 142 trolls)]] to stick to the [[attribution]] standard established by [[Creative Commons]], which uses the word "[[by]]" in all [[standard abbreviations]] to mean [[attribution]] ?</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=5460Talk:Wikipedia2004-09-09T21:38:58Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>''See [[Talk:Wikipedia (neutral)]], [[Talk:Wikipedia (Reds)]], [[Talk:Wikipedia (Richard Chilton)]] or [[Talk:Wikipedia_(142_trolls)]] to comment on any version of this article. This page is only for discussion of how [[Wikipedia]] relates to [[Consumerium]], not an attempt to rehash all of [[m:]] and etc.''<br />
<br />
OK, let's be clear: what is the relation of [[Wikipedia]] to the [[GFDL corpus]], and of that corpus to [[Consumerium]], legally and editorially? <br />
<br />
How exposed are [[Consumerium:We]] to [[Wikimedia corruption|their lies and stupidity]]?</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(142_trolls)&diff=16162Wikipedia (142 trolls)2004-09-09T21:35:27Z<p>142.177.109.161: moved</p>
<hr />
<div>''See [[Wikipedia (Reds)]] for the updated version that includes other views of this [[faction]].''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''[[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]]'''<br />
<br />
''See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a neutral point of view version.''<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia Itself==<br />
<br />
'''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.<br />
<br />
''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.''<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
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]].''<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Criticisms:===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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]]. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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]]'').<br />
<br />
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..<br />
<br />
Finally, Wikipedia has no full text search facility, due to deficiencies of the [[mediawiki]] software.<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
===Usefulness:===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
===Relation to Consumerium===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
===List of related wikipedia articles===<br />
<br />
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.'''<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
Understanding buying choices and their effects:<br />
* [[w:Conversion of units]]<br />
* [[w:GTIN]]<br />
* [[w:EAN]]<br />
* [[w:UPC]]<br />
* [[w:List of countries]]<br />
* [[w:List of timelines]]<br />
* [[w:List of reference tables]]<br />
* [[w:List of stock exchanges]]<br />
* [[w:List of supermarkets]]<br />
* [[w:Commodity markets]] - buying on the largest scale<br />
* [[w:Money]] - what it is and how it works, commodifying everything even you<br />
* [[w:Tariff]]<br />
<br />
Understanding moral choices as expressed in the marketplace:<br />
* [[w:list of ethics articles]] - why would you care what you buy?<br />
* [[w:Globalization]] makes it harder to know what your money does<br />
* [[w:Transparency International]] tries to make it easier to find out<br />
* [[w:Greenpeace]] has six campaigns to affect buying choices, and advocates<br />
* [[w:Accounting reform]] which would make more liabilities visible to you<br />
* [[w:Full cost accounting]] in particular would make waste visible<br />
* [[w:Means of persuasion]], e.g. [[w:advertising]], [[w:propaganda]] of<br />
** [[w:Productivism]] assumes that everything humans make is good<br />
** [[w:Consumerism]] assumes that everything humans want is good<br />
<br />
Directly relevant to consumerium mission, making actual moral buying choices:<br />
* [[w:Slow Food]] - tied for third most relevant? buy local, organic, etc.<br />
* [[w: Sweatshop]] - tied for third most relevant? often the target of<br />
* [[w: Boycott]] - second most relevant? usually shorter term than<br />
* [[w:Moral purchasing]] describes most exactly the consumerium.org mission<br />
* [[w:Local food]]<br />
<br />
Other<br />
* [[w:brand management|brand management]], how products are positioned and gain identity. The "Wikipedia" brand has this concern too, leading to:<br />
* 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. <br />
* [[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.<br />
<br />
See also: [[Wikipedia Red Faction]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)&diff=13394Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)2004-09-09T21:35:07Z<p>142.177.109.161: "from" and "perspective" are redundant - moving to Wikipedia (142 trolls) to name article after commenting faction</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia (142 trolls)]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=5353Wikipedia2004-09-09T21:32:12Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>There is no one agreed perspective on '''Wikipedia''' and its role in [[Consumerium Services]]. It is an extremely controversial project and so any relation to it is controversial. For now, [[w:]] links to background articles in [[Develop Wiki]] redirect to '''Wikipedia''' as a source of [[enemy project]] perspectives: views of reality from a far-right or fascist point of view i.e. that of "[[Wikimedia]]", "[[America]]" or the [[EPOV]], based on [[might makes right]] and [[technological escalation]] against any objectors.<br />
<br />
Because of this controversy, it is proposed that [[Research Wiki]] background articles default to [[Wikinfo]] instead. Its [[sympathetic point of view]] is much less amenable to [[usurper]] activity than the [[neutral point of view]]:<br />
<br />
See<br />
*[[Wikipedia (neutral)]] - a more balanced view of the project than [[w:Wikipedia]] which is self-promotional<br />
*[[Wikipedia (Reds)]] - a critical perspective from those seeking to [[end Wikimedia]], and some contributions that were formative in that perspective:<br />
::[[Wikipedia (Richard Chilton)]]<br />
::[[Wikipedia (142 trolls)]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Central_control&diff=16192Central control2004-09-09T21:28:20Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Central control''' is the opposite of distributed [[controll]]. A control system requires a [[God's Eye View]] to assess and coordinate and to allocate resources to all elements of a system. Such systems are almost always initially successful, and [[authoritarianism]] may appear to work temporarily:<br />
<br />
However in the longer run, with change over time, systems built in this way, e.g. the [[w:USSR]] or [[Wikimedia]], have historically collapsed under their own weight for lack of ability to integrate the disparate views of [[faction]]s, [[trolls]], [[dissident]]s and other [[heretic]]s and learn from them quickly enough to keep up with the various subversions that those apply to the centre.<br />
<br />
Like wolves taking down a bear, or dogs taking down a horse, several weaker but determined opponents can almost always overcome a single centralized but more powerful entity. The death struggle sometimes seems noble, but, it is futile: the more [[Distributed Consumerium]] will triumph over a centralized but still [[Transparent Consumerium]].</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarianism&diff=5235Authoritarianism2004-09-09T21:24:26Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Authoritarianism''' is an [[ideology]] which promotes [[defer]]ence relations to create a stable [[command hierarchy]] at all costs. It is most often associated with ants, bees, or human [[militarism]] and [[fascism]].<br />
<br />
In [[large public wiki]]s this ideology becomes the [[wiki ideology]] of [[sysop vandalism]], in which the futility of the [[wiki mission]] and the absolute domination of a controlling [[clique]] over that mission becomes obvious, even [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|in clear violation of license terms]].<br />
<br />
See [[anti-authoritarianism in practice]] for ways this ideology is resisted.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=User-owned,_user-run,_user-controlled&diff=16190User-owned, user-run, user-controlled2004-09-09T21:21:37Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>To be '''user-owned, user-run, user-[[controll]]ed''' is the most democratic vision of a [[large public wiki]]. It is advocated by [[English Wikipedia User Richardchilton]] and others of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]]. Even some [[trolls]] would probably back off [[anarchize|anarchizing]] the [[GFDL corpus]] for a while if there was some actual democracy in the way that corpus is edited and distributed among the various [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s.<br />
<br />
Are there good examples of such user-owned, -run, and democratically controlled wikis out there?</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(Richard_Chilton)&diff=5233Wikipedia (Richard Chilton)2004-09-09T21:19:28Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>"I would prefer however to be part of a wiki that is (or is more) [[user-owned, user-run, user-controlled]], and watch [[Wikipedia]] [[ending Wikimedia|crumble]] under the weight of its own [[authoritarianism]], [[central control|centrality of control]], [[due process|lack of working processes]] and so forth. In other words, I would prefer, as these alternative wikis become more viable and more popular, to contribute positively to them, have all the sane people slowly leave here (unless things are radically remade), and I myself start abandoning the struggle here so that only the [[Wikimedia|nutcases]] would take over." - [[English Wikipedia User Richardchilton]] commenting on the [[libel pit]] and [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|rolling GFDL violation]] that is '''Wikipedia'''.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(Richard_Chilton)&diff=5227Wikipedia (Richard Chilton)2004-09-09T21:18:29Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>"I would prefer however to be part of a wiki that is (or is more) [[user-owned, user-run, user-controlled]], and watch [[Wikipedia]] [[ending WIkimedia|crumble]] under the weight of its own [[authoritarianism]], [[central control|centrality of control]], [[due process|lack of working processes]] and so forth. In other words, I would prefer, as these alternative wikis become more viable and more popular, to contribute positively to them, have all the sane people slowly leave here (unless things are radically remade), and I myself start abandoning the struggle here so that only the [[Wikimedia|nutcases]] would take over." - [[English Wikipedia User Richardchilton]] commenting on the [[libel pit]] and [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|rolling GFDL violation]] that is '''Wikipedia'''.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_User_Richardchilton&diff=5396English Wikipedia User Richardchilton2004-09-09T21:10:54Z<p>142.177.109.161: this excerpt could be titled Wikipedia (Richard Chilton) and is another perspective that should be integrated into Wikipedia (Reds) - the more Reds that explain the truth the better</p>
<hr />
<div>''Commentary on [[Wikipedia]] by [[Richard Chilton]], probably the most eloquent and restrained of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] - see [[Wikipedia (Reds)]] for extension of this perspective. Copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Richardchilton] in anticipation of intense censorship from [[Wikimedia]].''<br />
<br />
[[image:Comintern.JPG|thumb|right|800px|]]<br />
<br />
'''"However desperate the situation and circumstances, do not despair. When there is everything to fear, be unafraid. When surrounded by dangers, fear none of them. When without resources, depend on resourcefulness. When surprised, take the enemy itself by surprise."''' -- [[Sun Tzu]]<br />
<br />
<br />
One idea I have had for a bit was what would it be like to have a non-Wikipedia wiki where everything was different, from who owned the servers, to what the point of view policies would be, to what the structure of administration would be. I have discovered, via [[User:Fennec]] that there are other wikis out there that are more up my alley. Perhaps everything is not 100% the way I would want it on them, but they are definitely more on my wavelength than here.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, me exploring these sites (especially one particular one) has taken time away from my campaign here. So now, the time I allot for Wiki activity is now half on other Wikis, on which I get along with the "power structure" better (the power structure being more rank and file, user supported etc.). I am still spending half of my time here however, it just irks me that people are going to go to Google and find a Wikipedia page with some total BS, and hear a claim that it is a supposedly neutral point of view article with "facts" on whatever. I have won some victories "in the open" (e.g. known user names), as I had too much consensus on my side about certain things, and I am happy about these, and am happy about my less well known edits as well.<br />
<br />
So that is where I stand now. My time spent here has been halved, which shall be a relief to some. But I am not yet gone. There are certain articles where I am absolutely not going to let some of the BS said be stated as if it were a fact. I would prefer however to be part of a wiki that is (or is more) user-owned, user-run, user-controlled, and watch Wikipedia crumble under the weight of its own authoritarianism, centrality of control, lack of working processes and so forth. In other words, I would prefer, as these alternative wikis become more viable and more popular, to contribute positively to them, have all the sane people slowly leave here (unless things are radically remade), and I myself start abandoning the struggle here so that only the nutcases would take over. In fact, if a user-run alternative to Wikipedia grew to be equal to it, I think I would abandon Wikipedia completely, save for perhaps noting on some frustrated user's web page that there are alternative wikis out there that may be more to their liking. [[User:Richardchilton|Richardchilton]] 02:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I'm going to put my thoughts on Wikipedia here, as well as some other things. This account is going to be on a hiatus in terms of editting articles, although I may engage in meta-discussions.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, when looking at the power distribution of Wikipedia, one may ask, what is the distribution of power? Obviously, the average user currently has a degree of power. Admins have even power. And who has the most power? The person who controls the means of production, Jimbo Wales. Lets start with the users.<br />
<br />
If one looks at the demographics of the world, half of human beings in the world get by on less than $2 a day and are either chronically malnourished or have serious concerns over where their NEXT meal is coming from. On the other hand, if you look at Internet user demographics, the most average user would be a white, white collar American man. It can be seen a number of ways on Wikipedia which don't have to be gone into here. Anyhow, this makes for an America-centric, white collar worldview. It is quite obvious to me that this view is sometimes disconnected from reality. I sometimes think of Orwell's ministry of information, where the ally of one day turns into the enemy of the next, and the glowing portraits of them have to be replaced by propaganda caricatures. An example might be Saddam Hussein, whom the US armed, who at one point "gassed his own people"...and kept getting arms from the US! It's quite a wonder how the tragedy of this was not discovered in the US until a few years later. But this is the type of thing you find regularly on Wikipedia, anything friendly to the bourgeoisie is all goodness and light, anything not is a demon who the wildest accusation against deserves a prominent place on their page.<br />
<br />
One thing I've noticed is that among the worst enemies of the US elite, even the right to name themselves has been stripped, and some pejorative or propaganda name is stuck on them. For example, the Communist Party of Kampuchea becomes the "Khmer Rouge". The Communist Party of Peru becomes the "Shining Path". Anyone in the popular front (National Liberation Front) fighting against the South Vietnamese government is called "Viet Cong", e.g. Vietnamese communist, whether they are communist or not. It seems to be the case where the most extreme propaganda smearing is going on that the US government and corporate media starts pegging these pejorative names on these groups, despite their protestation. I discussed this on<br />
[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)]], that it seemed logical to me to call a group what they call themselves (e.g. the Boy Scouts are called the Boy Scouts, The UK's Labor party is called the labor party and so forth). People came out of the woodwork to say this is not to be the case - the proper place for the name of a group is not from the group itself. The US corporate media, which is controlled by the wealthiest <2% of Americans (who are relatively wealthy themselves) is what is to determine the name of these things. They can get the name from the Pentagon psyops department or the State department or whatnot, disseminate it, and this is what we now must have as our authority of what to call something. Going back to 1984 again, this reminds me of the Newspeak dictionary, where words like freedom become thoughtcrime. Luckily we can still call french fries french fries for now, instead of being required to call them freedom fries (or eventually thoughtcrime fries). Such is Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One thing I've noticed is there seems to be a systematic persecution of left-wing users on Wikipedia. Users who do nothing but make POV right-wing rants like [[User:Ed Poor]] get made admin. The only admin who tries to help protect left wing users from persecution, [[User:172]], is himself persecuted ([[Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/172]], [[User_talk:172_sysop_status]]). Other users who might be called left wing like [[User:Wik]] are also persecuted ([[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik]],[[Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/Wik]]).<br />
<br />
An interesting thing is that the right-wing users are all ultimately and leveraging their ultimate power - that Wikipedia's servers are owned by "Jimbo" Wales, who controls everything, doled out adminships and so forth. I should note that Jimbo, who controls Wikipedia's capital of servers, is a fan of the far right Ayn Rand. The right-wingers base what they want to do on authority - the authority of adminships, where they can ban users and so forth and so on.<br />
<br />
I do not include myself with 172 and Wik because I do not care about the rules of Wikipedia as much as they do. I do have some rules of thumb for doing things though, and one of them is when embarking on something new to always follow the rules in the beginning.<br />
<br />
An interesting thing to consider about myself and the effect I will eventually have on Wikipedia, structure more than content, is that I am not a vandal in terms of trying to deny service to Wikipedia, or replace entries with "I RULE" and whatnot, I am just primarily unhappy with some of the propaganda I see passed off here as Encyclopedia fact.<br />
<br />
Furthermore as far as "following the rules", currently whether I do this or not is more at my discretion than something that can be forced upon me. Another interesting thing is that admins are given a lot of power, and all I need is one admin to really have it out for me if I'm following the rules, to among other things silence me completely. But their control over me only exists as long as I follow the rules, and I've come to the point where I am less interested in allowing them that control over me. I wanted to see how far things could be pushed and frankly was a little surprised at how authoritarian these people trying to push a certain POV on Wikipedia are. Well, I guess that's how it always is.<br />
<br />
It's an interesting thing. [[User:TimStarling]] for one realizes that currently whether or not I follow the rules are really just an option for me, so he's gone to work to make Wikipedia more authoritarian, more under tight control and so forth. It's interesting, how limited my functionality is within the system, and how eager some are to expand the authoritarian nature of the system. It took me about five minutes to figure out one way of getting around the rules (proxy servers). It seems quite a lot of time is being spent trying to figure out how to build a wall to prevent this from happening and keep people from breaking the rules. I consider this a victory - if hours of time by the enemy has to be spent to prevent me from doing something I did in five minutes, I consider that I have won. Being as that I've been on the Internet for 15 years so far, and still remember when domain names resolved to sri-nic.arpa, I can tell you that after the hours of effort that will be spent on this is eventually successful, I will simply spend another five minutes and use some other method to mask my IP. I've been reading about dialectic materialism and I see all of this as being natural, I have a demand (that entries stop being so biased), and the power structure is fighting against this.<br />
<br />
One interesting note is I faced the same sort of thing myself once. I once had a web site where people could upload anything. People often uploaded warez for others to download. My problems with this in order of importance were: it filled up disk space, it used up bandwidth, and I would get legal letters. On the other hand, I had limited time to fight against it and didn't want to make things too difficult for my normal users. The end result was I tightened things up so that maybe people would go onto the next loose haven to trade warez. But on the other hand, if someone did it on a small scale and cleverly they could usually get away with it, and frankly, as long as it was on something of a small scale and not wrecking my whole operation, I didn't really care. That's how things operate - retail stores could be like Fort Knox to prevent theft, but instead they use a certain amount of security, and as long as things don't go past a certain level they're OK with it.<br />
<br />
Personally, although I'm sure this galls some, I consider Wikipedia as much mine as anybody elses, including Jimbo's. I do not see the admins as people trying to maintain balance and NPOV, but rather as commissars making sure people stick to the party line, in this case, whatever is the crap that pours out of the corporate media on television is taken as truth. I consider it my duty to fight against this, using any tools I have in my arsenal, and I'm afraid with the limited amount of ways to do things within the rules, and the ease of working outside of the rules, I choose the latter. <br />
<br />
VeryVerily's detective work and accusations are going to matter a lot less now, what are you going to do about someone changing his IP every few minutes? Frankly, I have been a lot less restrained in the past few days. Before I would qualify and modify things I thought were POV. Now I just delete them wholesale and - most of the time no one stops me. I felt the need to go by the NPOV before, but now I don't, and I am a lot more successful in modifying Wikipedia now.<br />
<br />
The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia's rules system is biased and unfair, especially taking the human element of it into account. There is not much enforcement power for it though right now, so in many ways it is up to the user whether he wants to follow the rules or not. So I'm going to keep living outside of the rules for a little while and see what happens.<br />
<br />
I see that Lancemurdoch and Hectorrodriguez, two of my usernames from this IP address range were found, from detective work to some extent, as well as someone looking at the admin page. I had another name from another IP for a long while, I see that has been discovered, although I no longer use that one. Durruti was found but I went out of my way to show how I could break the rules so I wanted that to be found. I've been editting a lot of pages thusfar, and while I've had some reverts for individual pages, no VV type detectives have popped up on my trail reverting all of my pages yet. We'll see how it goes.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_board&diff=15678Talk:Independent board2004-09-09T20:33:45Z<p>142.177.109.161: avoid virtual community fanatics lusting to apply the police metaphor</p>
<hr />
<div></div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_board&diff=5225Talk:Independent board2004-09-09T20:32:19Z<p>142.177.109.161: candidates?</p>
<hr />
<div></div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinfo&diff=14591Wikinfo2004-09-09T19:38:27Z<p>142.177.109.161: removing irrelevant nonsense - the Metaweb article on Wikinfo is entirely non-controversial and who wrote it is irrelevant - if anyone wants to know, they can look at its Page History there easily </p>
<hr />
<div>'''[http://wikinfo.org Wikinfo]''' is a very useful project that overcomes many of the problems of [[Wikipedia]] and [[Disinfopedia]], which are both based on bad models that freeze [[editorial bias]] of the [[community point of view]] or just that of the [[sysop power structure]] (which is actually worse).<br />
<br />
It runs on [[GetWiki]], which is a fork of [[MediaWiki]] 1.1.0. under [[CC-by-nc-sa]]. GetWiki features something that would be very useful for running [[Consumerium]]: [[XML]]-autoimport of [[Wikipedia]] articles that don't exist in Wikinfo, but exist in Wikipedia, letting them be [[mirror]]ed until they actually need to be edited. Thus:<br />
<br />
'''Wikinfo''' texts default to the [[GFDL text corpus]] but authors can decide to use, or can quote, [[Creative Commons]] texts or other [[free documentation]] as well.<br />
<br />
In line with the biases of [[M.R.M. Parrott]], it does not use the [[standard wiki URI]]s nor support an [[interwiki link standard]] nor is it participating in any effort to an [[interwiki identity standard]]. Accordingly it is unlikely to displace [[Wikipedia]] as the central [[GFDL corpus access provider]].<br />
<br />
''See [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Wikinfo this analysis at Metaweb]. Wikinfo was formerly known as the '''Internet Encyclopedia''' and is primarily a project of [[Fred Bauder]] whom some have suggested would be a good [[Lowest Troll]] of [[Research Wiki]].''<br />
<br />
Wikinfo, an internet encyclopedia: http://wikinfo.org/</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jukeboksi/Blog/September2004&diff=5249User:Jukeboksi/Blog/September20042004-09-09T19:33:48Z<p>142.177.109.161: are you actually tough enough to DO this job, Juxo? do you really think Monsanto or McDonald's or Exxon is going to be EASIER to deal with than Bomis/Wikimedia? tough it out and prove that you CAN</p>
<hr />
<div>8.9.2004<br />
<br />
It is clear that claiming [[corruption]] is not a function of this wiki unless it is such (dis)information that it is useful to have around to avoid mistakes others may have made while building similar projects. Now I have to go, but I will carry on later to move things to appropriate places and remove any false information from articles which state it as (true) information<br />
<br />
:You are a liar, and you are part of this [[Wikimedia corruption]] that leads to deliberate censoring of information on things like a [[w:Genuine Progress Indicator]]. You have effectively destroyed this project by reacting to these [[Wikimedia]] lies, and you can expect no further help from any real [[trolls]]. When [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] is formed it will be formally accused of the same corruption that it covers up on behalf of its friends at [[Wikimedia]], and you can expect no further contact or help now.<br />
<br />
:What we do from this point, we do to prevent Wikimedia covering up on itself, and to prevent you from claiming that you actually represent the [[consensus]] view of all [[faction]]s and participants in [[Consumerium:Itself]]. Unless someone does this, the whole project collapses into yet another corporate shill.<br />
<br />
:Review [[Consumerium Governance Organization election]]s and role of the [[Chief Editor]] and ask whether or not you should be knuckling under to [[Bomis]] and [[Wikimedia]] or whether you must have the guts to tell them to get lost, in order to proceed in a position of responsibility in this project.<br />
<br />
:Are you actually tough enough to DO this job, Juxo? do you really think Monsanto or McDonald's or Exxon is going to be EASIER to deal with than Bomis/Wikimedia? tough it out and prove that you CAN<br />
<br />
Also the amount of bullshitting about irrelevant issues is getting to me slowly. <br />
<br />
:The most relevant issue is the credibility of articles imported via [[w:]]. If you want discussion of [[Wikipedia]] to tail off, redirect [[w:]] to [[Wikinfo]]. <-- if you were ever looking for an offer of a truce, there it is.<br />
<br />
The ultimate meaning of this wiki is to plan the operation of the production wikis" not useless biased rethoric and claims about non-consumerium issues that really hurt our ability to get the real work done (ie. [[Consumerium:Intermediate pages]], forming an [[CGO]] and establishing what is the [[Consumerium Process]] and [[Guidelines]] and [[Rules]] for the wikis to come.<br />
<br />
:By not actually acting in accord even with such reasonable guidelines as [[Consumerium:Proposed deletions]], you have ended all reasonable coopeartion. There is no "our", you are just imposing a [[command hierarchy]] that must fail.<br />
<br />
I plead to all parties that we leave the unnecessary/damaging throwing of accustations and focus on getting the very practical issues worked out so that we can move on the next stage ie. [[Research Wiki pilot]] --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:59, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)<br />
<br />
:That is entirely up to you. [[Trolls]] are done with you. Implement a means of actually choosing the best editor for the [[Develop Wiki]] and for the [[Research Wiki]], via a [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], and we will help you move towards that. But we are no longer submitting to your very poor editorial judgement.<br />
<br />
----<br />
7.9.2004<br />
<br />
Today I've been mostly organizing my study notes and editing [[wikipedia]], mainly adding categories toa business and economics articles.<br />
----<br />
6.9.2004<br />
<br />
Last weekend I got my move to [[w:Tampere|Tampere]] mostly finalized though most of the stuff is now around my room in boxes and bags and I have to sort them out and find a place for all stuff. I should be getting [[w:ADSL|ADSL]] access in one to two weeks time which will help me contribute more<br />
<br />
Yesterday I had a meetup with [[User:Linkola|Linkola]] who is working on his doctorate in http://www.uiah.fi . I'm half way reading through his masters thesis and will write a brief summary of it here. It contains lots of interesting research information about [[consumer]] wishes, hopes, fears and practical information about '''how''' consumers use the information about [[product]]s supplied to them currently. <br />
<br />
:It's very easy to study what they look at. It's very hard to study how it affects them. Focus on [[price premium]] perhaps as the indicator that can be made objective? That is, someone buys the [[green light]] product even though it costs 10 Eurocents more than the [[red light]] - but if it costs 15 they do not buy either, or, they actually buy the red light product. That's the kind of data you need to determine what the actual willingness of people to pay more to satisfy [[individual buying criteria]] is.<br />
<br />
He renewed his commitment to become one of the founding members of Consumerium Association of Finland. He was most interested in getting a [[pilot project]] hastily off the ground and to get to analysing '''how and what information consumers use for making decicions''', so I'm betting that he would be very interested in [[link transit]] data which has been a hot potato around here for quite some while now. <br />
<br />
:Yes, clearly it's of even more use to [[Consumerium Services]] or other serious [[wiki mission]]s than to those [[Wikimedia|bogus pseudo-encyclopedists]] who don't even understand why it's important, or pretend not to (more likely unless they are stupid).<br />
<br />
::If it's so obvious why link transit data is valuable, then why haven't any of the users requested it? Just answer my question on [[Talk:Link transit]]. If you're so arrogant that you refuse to my question on the grounds that I am "too stupid", why should you expect me to do this work for you? -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 08:49, 8 Sep 2004 (EEST)<br />
<br />
:::What's obvious to people with actual experience managing a [[corpus]] is not the same as what's obvious to the gibbering drooling hordes that consider [[Wikipedia]] to be more credible than the [[w:National Enquirer]]. Why didn't "the users" demand retaining the number of page views, too? How is anyone supposed to answer that? You told them that server load was the problem, that you couldn't do anything "because of server load", there were dozens of such requests turned down for this reason. Perhaps you're all such bollocks as programmers that you can't figure out how to do it effeciently? But you certainly did your job squashing the user requirements pipeline flat: don't blame the [[trolls]] if you don't get accurate information from it now.<br />
:::And, no one ever said they expected anyone, least of all ''you'' "to do this work for" anyone. It's important to editors to have some idea of how often their work is read, so they know where to focus editorial effort. It's not surprising that Wikipedia didn't think of this since it values volunteer time at zero, generally, and doesn't care how much volunteer time gets wasted dealing with say [[sysop vandalism]] and the like.<br />
<br />
He also expressed his view that we should start with a limited group of users, but I countered that with the fact that we have for a long time been planning for a system that is accessible to everyone without any limitations of scope as to users. <br />
<br />
:It is obviously better to have wide-open editorial policy that is [[troll-friendly]] and immune to [[propaganda]] or takeover by any one [[faction]] - else who would trust the data? This is just typical academic belief on his part, that somehow cliques can be made trustworthy. It's fairly obvious that without the wide-open policy, none of the design work would have gotten done.<br />
<br />
:So far even the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] expressed strongly by some sysops pretending to be trolls has not had any significant effect. Anyone coming to the front page and clicking around would probably never see any of the nonsense they've been writing, so, [[troll-friendly]] policy proves itself once again. Eventually they'll tire and realize they are harassing people who do serious work, interrupting us with their trivial concerns and bogus claims.<br />
<br />
I understand that having one single group (ie. the members of some association with interest in these things we are to be dealing with) would make for better research material for his doctorate if he decides to include Consumerium in some way in his post-graduate studies. The discussion we had was intense and I found it very pleasing to actually get to talk about these things face-to-face and not via [[wiki]].<br />
<br />
:It would be useful to support a doctoral study on [[moral purchasing]] but we really need a [[Research Wiki]] to actually start to compile [[intermediate page]]s on all the things we care about. We are long past due to do that, and other projects are passing us. We can't rely on [[CorpKnowPedia]] and [[Consumerpedia]] and [[Wikipedia]] and [[Disinfopedia]] to track these things, though, we might from time to time rely on information from all of them. [[Wikinfo]] might be useful to track [[sympathetic point of view]] of various movements like [[no old growth]] or [[dolphin free]], but, not to track corps, since the [[Coca-Cola]] article there must be sympathetic to Coca-Cola! So we have a niche to fill that has not been filled. Perhaps work with [[Indymedia]] on this, as they expose corporate misbehaviour a lot?<br />
<br />
----<br />
2.9.2004<br />
<br />
[http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=validate&timestamp=20040810005530 Here's] an interesting piece of code developed by Magnus Manske some while ago. It's not used on [[Wikipedia]] but could be very useful for the [[Consumerium Process]]. It allows users to flag some article as validated on a number of issues ie. ''style, legal, completeness, facts, suitability for "final" release ([[Publish Wiki]] in our case)''<br />
<br />
Thanks to [[User:TimStarling]] for pointing out this code. I queried him about Magnuses' code for custom meta-tags such as "no index" (or whatever it's called) because if we could easily and reliably control what gets indexed by search engines and what not we could do with a unified [[Research Wiki]] and [[Publish Wiki]] where articles flagged indexable would be considered "published" and those with "no index" to be still in research stage. Just a thought. Apparently Magnuses' code does not include tags for robots but according to Tim this would not be difficult to implement. The main problem being that once an article is indexed and then some seedy characters add questionable content how does one get Google etc. to stop indexing it. Apparently there is yet no way to remove pages from search engines on request.<br />
<br />
[http://www.textually.org/picturephoning/archives/002729.htm Ericsson and ScanBuy] working on including [[barcode]] capture properties with [http://www.scanzoom.com/ ScanZoom] technology for [[Ericsson]] [[Hardware|camera phones]].<br />
----<br />
1.9.2004<br />
<br />
I'm currently reading the master's thesis of Jouni Linkola, "Shopping Guide to The Future", which is available (in Finnish) at http://mlab.uiah.fi/5medialaunch/jlinkola_lopputyo.pdf there is also a visualization of some main aspects of it at http://personal.inet.fi/surf/graphic/future.html (in Finnish again). The visualization is quite similar to the original [[Motivation]] of [[Consumerium:Itself]]. I'm looking forward to meeting up with Jouni to discuss the synergies between his post-graduate studies apparently also focusing on information services for consumers to be more informed and empowered.<br />
<br />
Also check out the cool [[Consumeter]] shopping bag at http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~antello/designfiction/pictures.htm Watch the associated videos as well if you have broadband.<br />
<br />
:[[design fiction]] is a [[Good Thing]], that's what [[visions]] and [[best cases]] are about ultimately; and [[free circulation of fiction]] is better still.<br />
<br />
:Can [[Consumerium:We]] get Linkola to contribute to [[visions]] and [[best cases]]? Also he might have insight into [[worst cases]], but more likely we have thought through that more. We need one unified [[design fiction]] effort to figure out what our priorities are, and where we're going technically in the long run.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Research:claims_of_corruption&diff=16181Research:claims of corruption2004-09-09T19:30:56Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT Guidelines for claiming corruption cases in Research Wiki woops odd name, too long to actually remember, thus probably a bad name</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Guidelines for claiming corruption cases in Research Wiki]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Research:claims_of_corruption&diff=5221Research:claims of corruption2004-09-09T19:30:08Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT guidelines for claiming corruption in Research Wiki - rather than develop a whole "in" ...building metaphor, let's have a Research: space until en.consumerium.org exists</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[guidelines for claiming corruption in Research Wiki]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Guidelines_for_claims_of_corruption&diff=5248Guidelines for claims of corruption2004-09-09T19:29:17Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT Research:claims of corruption</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Research:claims of corruption]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Guidelines_for_claims_of_corruption&diff=5220Guidelines for claims of corruption2004-09-09T19:28:33Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT guidelines for claims of corruption in Research Wiki; in general, such claims will be limited in Develop Wiki to those directly affecting operations or reliability of GFDL data</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[guidelines for claims of corruption in Research Wiki]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guidelines_for_claiming_corruption_cases_in_Research_Wiki&diff=16177Talk:Guidelines for claiming corruption cases in Research Wiki2004-09-09T19:27:06Z<p>142.177.109.161: fix link</p>
<hr />
<div>If human garbage that has actually made friends with [[Wikimedia]] will back off, these guidelines can be improved to being actually useful. The case of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] and involvement of [[Bomis]] in subverting any attempt to create an [[independent board]] is an excellent [[Consumerium Research pilot]] [[test case]], and when the [[Research Wiki]] exists, this case can be among the very first it deals with. Advantages of that include:<br />
<br />
*Expanding [[TIPAESA]] form to better model [[adversarial process]]es such as [[libel chill]] and [[perjury]] claims, which are going to be common in the actual operation of [[Consumerium Services]] (see [[Chief Editor]] especially)<br />
<br />
*Creating maximum publicity for the [[Research Wiki]] - if the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] devotes say half of its bandwidth to lying about [[Consumerium]] (presently it is only about 10%), then, the wiser people who read that [[vile mailing list]] only to identify and attack [[Wikipedia]] will come over here, and the most experienced [[trolls]] will become participants in this project!<br />
<br />
*Once and for all getting the truth about [[Wikimedia]] and its lies exposed; dissecting an [[enemy project]] in full view of everyone who has criticized it or supported it - which is just what we will do to [[McDonald's]] or [[Coca-Cola]] or [[Exxon]] or [[Monsanto]], and which we must be ready to do without hesitation even to "friends".</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Test_case&diff=16179Test case2004-09-09T19:25:35Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>In a [[pilot]], a '''test case''' is one that helps stress the capabilities of the [[Consumerium Process|process]] or [[Consumerium Services|system/services]] that are being tested. These should be selected for maximum controversy and to follow up decisively on [[proof of concept]] [[progress]]:<br />
<br />
*The prototype [[Develop Wiki]] discussion about [[independent board]], [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]], role of [[Bomis]], role of [[perjury]], [[libel chill]], [[groupthink]], actual [[libel]], [[echo chamber]]s, and so on, could be fully developed as a '''case''' of a [[for-profit]] or [[interest group]] exploiting [[non-profit]] status. In the [[Consumerium Research pilot]] such claims would help '''test''' the [[guidelines for claims of corruption]] and subject them to maximum pressure from expert wiki users of the [[sysop power structure]], those prone to try maximum [[technological escalation]]. Lawsuits based on that would also perhaps help [[self-funding]].<br />
<br />
*The prototype [[Develop Wiki]] discussion about [[Gus Kouwenhoven]], [[Craig Hubley]], [[Fred Bauder]], [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Abe Sokolov]] could easily be developed into a model of what are the reasonable limits of talking about persons in the [[Research Wiki]], and [[guidelines for claims about people]].<br />
<br />
*[[Ending Wikimedia]] and forcing [[Bomis]] to disavow itself of any involvement with [[Wikipedia]] would be an excellent '''test case''' that would prove the ability of online scrutiny to eventually force changes to some [[power structure]], even a trivial power structure. Since [[trolls]] already [[driven off by trolls|drove off]] the former [[Chief Editor]] [[Larry Sanger]] it seems entirely reasonable that they could actually drive off Wales as well, [[capitalism]] and its tendency to let [[usurper]]s claim to own things, notwithstanding. ''The [[Reds]] may be especially prone to helping out here.''</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Test_case&diff=5218Test case2004-09-09T19:24:33Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>In a [[pilot]], a '''test case''' is one that helps stress the capabilities of the [[Consumerium Process|process]] or [[Consumerium Services|system/services]] that are being tested. These should be selected for maximum controversy and to follow up decisively on [[proof of concept]] [[progress]]:<br />
<br />
*The prototype [[Develop Wiki]] discussion about [[independent board]], [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]], role of [[Bomis]], role of [[perjury]], [[libel chill]], [[groupthink]], actual [[libel]], [[echo chamber]]s, and so on, could be fully developed as a '''case''' of a [[for-profit]] or [[interest group]] exploiting [[non-profit]] status. In the [[Consumerium Research pilot]] such claims would help '''test''' the [[guidelines for claiming corruption]] and subject them to maximum pressure from expert wiki users of the [[sysop power structure]], those prone to try maximum [[technological escalation]]. Lawsuits based on that would also perhaps help [[self-funding]].<br />
<br />
*The prototype [[Develop Wiki]] discussion about [[Gus Kouwenhoven]], [[Craig Hubley]], [[Fred Bauder]], [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Abe Sokolov]] could easily be developed into a model of what are the reasonable limits of talking about persons in the [[Research Wiki]], and [[guidelines for claims about people]].<br />
<br />
*[[Ending Wikimedia]] and forcing [[Bomis]] to disavow itself of any involvement with [[Wikipedia]] would be an excellent '''test case''' that would prove the ability of online scrutiny to eventually force changes to some [[power structure]], even a trivial power structure. Since [[trolls]] already [[driven off by trolls|drove off]] the former [[Chief Editor]] [[Larry Sanger]] it seems entirely reasonable that they could actually drive off Wales as well.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Resarch_Wiki_pilot&diff=16178Resarch Wiki pilot2004-09-09T19:17:26Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT Consumerium Research pilot</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Consumerium Research pilot]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guidelines_for_claiming_corruption_cases_in_Research_Wiki&diff=5219Talk:Guidelines for claiming corruption cases in Research Wiki2004-09-09T19:16:50Z<p>142.177.109.161: usefulness</p>
<hr />
<div>If human garbage that has actually made friends with [[Wikimedia]] will back off, these guidelines can be improved to being actually useful. The case of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] and involvement of [[Bomis]] in subverting any attempt to create an [[independent board]] is an excellent [[Resarch Wiki pilot]] [[test case]], and when the [[Research Wiki]] exists, this case can be among the very first it deals with. Advantages of that include:<br />
<br />
*Expanding [[TIPAESA]] form to better model [[adversarial process]]es such as [[libel chill]] and [[perjury]] claims, which are going to be common in the actual operation of [[Consumerium Services]] (see [[Chief Editor]] especially)<br />
<br />
*Creating maximum publicity for the [[Research Wiki]] - if the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] devotes say half of its bandwidth to lying about [[Consumerium]] (presently it is only about 10%), then, the wiser people who read that [[vile mailing list]] only to identify and attack [[Wikipedia]] will come over here, and the most experienced [[trolls]] will become participants in this project!<br />
<br />
*Once and for all getting the truth about [[Wikimedia]] and its lies exposed; dissecting an [[enemy project]] in full view of everyone who has criticized it or supported it - which is just what we will do to [[McDonald's]] or [[Coca-Cola]] or [[Exxon]] or [[Monsanto]], and which we must be ready to do without hesitation even to "friends".</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_corruption&diff=14315Wikimedia corruption2004-09-09T19:09:25Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT alleged Wikimedia corruption; that page is now balanced with clear marking of fact vs. allegation, transparent lying coverup "Response" from Wikimedia, and devastating "Counter", so</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]]</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Editor&diff=5247Chief Editor2004-09-09T19:07:48Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Chief Editor''' of [[Publish Wiki]] takes full formal legal responsibility for the [[Consumerium buying signal]] in each country including acting as [[copyright infringement agent]] and ensuring [[GFDL]] or other [[sharealike]] (e.g. [[GetWiki]]'s [[CC-by-nc-sa]]) license compliance required to ensure that smooth operations continue.<br />
<br />
He or she answers in particular to [[libel chill]] or [[perjufy]] with [[cease and desist letter]]s sent in by nice companies that are just trying to help us tell the truth about them and do [[brand management]] better. ;-)<br />
<br />
This person is not necessarily actively authoring or editing material - that will be done by ordinary [[Publish Wiki Editor]]s - but is a specialist in discouraging companies from interfering with [[Consumerium Services]] and making it clear that it is definitely a duel to the death if they start to do so:<br />
<br />
A typical response might read something like:<br />
<br />
:"Your company is destroying X and Y and we believe we can prove that in court. We intend to expose you and keep others from buying your product. We do not believe that [[diluting the trademark]] or [[interfering with business]] are valid claims to make against those exposing people and companies like you, and we have the funds and friends to take this to a constitutional or human rights or international court if necessary. You are best advised to respond via the channels already established in [[Consumerium Services]] for issues with the accuracy or relevance of the material that is presented in the [[Consumerium buying signal]]."<br />
<br />
:"If you are an attorney, you are best off firing this client, because once [[Consumerium]] [[trolls]] have bit ahold of your leg, they are very unlikely to let go until that leg has been [[gnawing|totally gnawed off]]. To lose in court to our trolls will expose you to profound scrutiny beyond even that in the [[McLibel]] case. It will be humiliating and will hurt your own personal career. So, you sociopath, quit now while you're ahead and find a less reprehensible company to work for. <br />
<br />
You have been warned: your client is not entitled to your help morally despite what the laws says: Very soon, you may be facing jail time for [[perjury]], and a cell mate selected specifically for your enlightenment by forces you will never know. As they sexually abuse you, remember, it was us who put you there."<br />
<br />
Because such responses will be controversial and must be written so as to comply (barely) with the law, this '''Chief Editor''' may need to be an attorney, one in each country and selected by the CGO for that country.<br />
<br />
A [[Consumerium Governance Organization election]] may be held for this post, but, it may be better to simply appoint the meanest qualified legal troll we can find: someone who actually enjoys fighting in court and in the press, and has no problem digging up dirt on [[enemy project]]s and spreading it all over.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_board&diff=14479Independent board2004-09-09T19:01:26Z<p>142.177.109.161: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_board&diff=5215Independent board2004-09-09T18:59:34Z<p>142.177.109.161: definition from private sector, for use in resolving corruption claims and so on</p>
<hr />
<div></div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Claims_of_corruption&diff=5246Claims of corruption2004-09-09T18:52:16Z<p>142.177.109.161: repairing vandalism damage: the source of the claims doesn't matter if they are easily documented, as they are (how to do so is now listed here), making "allegation" vs. "fact" more clear</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Wikipedia]] (www.wikipedia.org) is a user interface to a "[[copyleft]]" or [[share-alike]] encyclopedia that is collaboratively developed using wiki software. Most [[GFDL corpus]] contributions move through Wikipedia channels:<br />
<br />
It is also the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. Wikipedia is "managed and operated" by the non-profit [[Wikimedia Foundation]] which is registered (only) in the state of Florida, USA.<br />
<br />
The encyclopedic project was alleged by some to have been [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]], a group or [[clique]] or [[cabal]] of [[sysop]]s or administrators, from the actual [[GFDL corpus]] contributors in 2003. Some of these allege that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] and has abused their contributions - there is some talk of a [[class action suit]] to this effect.<br />
<br />
Since the creation of [[Wikimedia]] by [[Daniel Mayer]], 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:<br />
<br />
Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes:<br />
<br />
=== structural corruption ===<br />
<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
*'''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]].<br />
<br />
::[[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.<br />
<br />
This was shortly after the "election" of [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.<br />
<br />
*users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count", e.g. only donors to [[Wikimedia]] can vote on their representatives<br />
<br />
::Response: 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.<br />
<br />
:::Countered: Mailing list users are not wiki users. This has been downgraded to an allegation since it is contingent on realizing that.<br />
<br />
*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; <br />
<br />
::Response: 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.<br />
<br />
:::Response: 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.<br />
<br />
...an issue debated on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] but overruled by legal expert Jim Wales as per usual<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
:::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]].<br />
<br />
*[[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims<br />
<br />
::Response: Beside of being made with no source, I guess that again, this is not a proof of Wikimedia corruption either.<br />
<br />
:::Counter: This is not an allegation it's a simple [[fact]]: false statements are repeated over and over again in the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] if its users feel safe given Wales' views. 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.<br />
<br />
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vandalism]] by almost the entire [[sysop power structure]]<br />
<br />
::Response: 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.<br />
<br />
:::Counter: this is not an allegation, it is a [[fact]] - most [[sysop]]s have been involved in doing damage to the [[GFDL corpus]] and denying other users access to improved articles. This is [[vandalism]] that just happens to be carried out by those authorized by [[Wikimedia]]. By your view of what constitutes appropriate editorial judgement, that Wikimedia 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]], frees it of responsibility? That is not governance, it is corrupt and probably even [[w:racketeering]] if any commercial gain of any kind is involved.<br />
<br />
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vigilantiism]] and contemplation of more serious [[developer vigilantiism]]<br />
<br />
::Response: Same answer. Will add that Wikimedia can protect what it physically own. I see not where the corruption stands here either<br />
<br />
:::Counter: this is also not an allegation but a fact: the [[sysop]]s do regularly [[block IP]] for what they call "[[trolling]]" which means whatever they want it to mean, and usually means political disagreement. "Wikimedia" 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. <br />
<br />
*[[ad hominem delete]] without process, recently spread to [[Meta-Wikipedia]]<br />
<br />
::Response: 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. <br />
<br />
:::Counter: another [[fact]] not an [[allegation]] - see [[w:Genuine Progress Indicator]] - ''woops not there!'' - or [[w:state services]] - ''woops not there''! why not? "no relation"? That Ayn Rand disapproves of both and so does Wales is "no relation"?) 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]].<br />
<br />
*[[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)<br />
<br />
::Response: same comment. This is micro management. Plus, an accusation without sources has little value.<br />
<br />
:::Counter: another [[fact]] easy to find: you will see lots of [[revert]] with reference to "Who wrote it" rather than "what it says or how credible that is" on [[Recentchanges]] at [[Wikipedia]]. Again, you aren't seriously answering to the charges: 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.<br />
<br />
:::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]]<br />
<br />
*Editorial policy, set by people who speak only English, that leads to the ''allegation:'' that policy becomes U.S. and U.K. centric ([[EPOV]]).<br />
<br />
::Response: false. I see not even the need to argue with this argument. Plus, Wikimedia does not drive editorial policy.<br />
<br />
:::Counter: 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.<br />
<br />
*''Allegation:'' total censorship of [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] - not even history now visible due to intimidation of this group<br />
<br />
::Response: well not answer to this; know not enough about it.<br />
<br />
:::Counter: Look up the various "requests" made of [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] and how his attempt to suggest [[wiki regime change]] was ultimately censored.<br />
<br />
*''Allegation:'' attempted [[libel chill]] by labelling contents of this page "[[slander]]".<br />
<br />
::Response: By Wikimedia itself ?<br />
::It is not slander ?<br />
<br />
:::Counter: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. The fact is, someone called it "slander" - look in the [[page history]]. The allegation is that this is part of a [[libel chill]] campaign.<br />
<br />
:::Also, read the definitions of [[libel]] and [[slander]] they are extremely clear. Whatever is going on here, it can't possibly be [[slander]], by legal definitions, because it's written it has to satisfy the [[libel]] definitions.<br />
<br />
*''Allegation:'' several attempts to revert these claims without answering to them, proving there is no adequate response<br />
<br />
::Response: [[English Wikipedia User Anthere|I]] answered them. Will detail more if necessary. Fallacious argument : not answering is no proof the claims are correct.<br />
<br />
:::Counter: 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).<br />
<br />
:::There is continued attempt to trivialize and deny these claims and hide or downplay the evidence for them, including labelling obvious facts "allegations"<br />
<br />
=== individual corruption by officers ===<br />
<br />
*''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<br />
<br />
::Response: Not a proof of Wikimedia corruption.<br />
::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.<br />
::chilling people is not usually a good weight to force them to become pro-american. This argument is real bad.<br />
:::Counter: 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.<br />
<br />
*[[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]]<br />
<br />
::Response: uh ? Where ?<br />
<br />
:::Counter: 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.<br />
<br />
*[[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<br />
<br />
::Response: Certainly, Daniel is not credible in [[trolls|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.<br />
<br />
:::Response: 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. He may also be guilty of [[perjury]]. You have accepted an incompetent and petulant and unreliable person prone to lying 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?<br />
<br />
''For issues with developers and others without official status, see [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]]. The most egregious of these is:''<br />
<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
''official response from [[Wikimedia]]:''<br />
<br />
I suggest that all unsupported arguments given as proof are removed. <br />
<br />
:Your "suggestion" is actually an attempt to shield [[perjury|perjurors]], [[libel|libellers]], [[libel chill|libel chillers]], [[sysop vandalism|those abusing the GFDL contributors]] and [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|the license that Wikipedia was founded on]]. It should be denied out right with a [[cease and desist letter]] from [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] to [[Wikimedia Foundation]] telling you people that you have no right to lie about yourselves here or about others there.<br />
<br />
:But, to start a [[Peace Process]], 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
: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]].<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Anthere.<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
:[[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.<br />
<br />
:Yes, Anthere, resign. Resign now.</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_(Reds)&diff=5354Talk:Wikipedia (Reds)2004-09-09T18:31:15Z<p>142.177.109.161: no delinking of Wikimedia corruption : it is the whole basis of the Reds' critique, you can't gut it like this in a talk page from Reds' perspective</p>
<hr />
<div>The entire [[m:]] Meta-Wikipedia is devoted to Talk about Wikipedia. Please don't do it here!<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
[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]].<br />
<br />
According to that account, "The comments by User:Pakaran <br />
are merely an example of a broader, overarching pattern; the abuse of users <br />
who hold unpopular beliefs is practically out in the open now and out of <br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
''From [[w:Wikipedia_talk:Webby Awards]]''<br />
<br />
:"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.<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
:::Feel free to do so, it's [[GFDL]] stupid<br />
<br />
''also from that page''<br />
<br />
Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
:This is true, it's [[ad hominem delete]] and [[sysop vandalism]], which are absolutely counter to any "real encyclopedia" goals.<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
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]<br />
<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
"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]<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
[[English Wikipedia User Plautus satire]] [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:JustNews comments] on Wikipedia:<br />
<br />
:"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."<br />
<br />
::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]].<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
:Probably she just did not share his [[Fox News point of view]]. ;-)<br />
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
''From [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]]:''<br />
<br />
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?</div>142.177.109.161https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Consumerium:Reds&diff=16163Consumerium:Reds2004-09-09T18:29:56Z<p>142.177.109.161: #REDIRECT Reds; temporary redirect; when Consumerium:Reds are recognized formally as a faction of Consumerium:We, this can become a real article</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Reds]]</div>142.177.109.161