Editing False and unsubstantiated claims
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''False and unsubstantiated claims''' appear often on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] and other forums devoted to maintaining a [[clique]] in a position of power. [[Power grab]]s are enabled by the tolerance of such claims without any means or standards to examine them, e.g. putting them in [[TIPAESA]] form, and restricting or preventing anyone from deleting or modifying them until they are answered to. | '''False and unsubstantiated claims''' appear often on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] and other forums devoted to maintaining a [[clique]] in a position of power. [[Power grab]]s are enabled by the tolerance of such claims without any means or standards to examine them, e.g. putting them in [[TIPAESA]] form, and restricting or preventing anyone from deleting or modifying them until they are answered to. | ||
Some [[large public wiki]]s have a single [[GodKing]] to declare what constitute '''false''' or | Some [[large public wiki]]s have a single [[GodKing]] to declare what constitute '''false''' or ''unsubstantiated'''. This person is obviously in a [[conflict of interest]] regarding such claims made about his own utterances or claims. Accordingly, [[corruption]], e.g. [[Wikimedia corruption]], is the only possible result of failing to have a single pipeline to resolve claims or issues that does not involve the person or people who are actually talked about. | ||
Of all such claims, those regarding [[alleged | Of all such claims, those regarding [[alleged or collective identity]] are the most common, and hardest to control, given the mutability of [[identity on the Internet]]. | ||
The problem with tolerating unlimited '''claims''' is that it exposes one to: | The problem with tolerating unlimited '''claims''' is that it exposes one to: | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
It is also common to label fully substantiated and easily documented '''claims''' as "'''false'''" or "'''unsubstantiated'''" as a means of intimidating those who make them. This tactic is seen for instance on both sides of [[troll-sysop struggle]] and has marked the [[GFDL corpus]] debate to a remarkable degree: reducing the entire project to [[tabloid journalism]] at best, [[libel pit]] at worst, and rendering [[Wikipedia]] useless as reference for journalistic purposes. | It is also common to label fully substantiated and easily documented '''claims''' as "'''false'''" or "'''unsubstantiated'''" as a means of intimidating those who make them. This tactic is seen for instance on both sides of [[troll-sysop struggle]] and has marked the [[GFDL corpus]] debate to a remarkable degree: reducing the entire project to [[tabloid journalism]] at best, [[libel pit]] at worst, and rendering [[Wikipedia]] useless as reference for journalistic purposes. | ||
[[Consumerium Services]] have been pressured to label [[Wikimedia corruption]] charges as '''false and unsubstantiated'''. Most or all of which of these claims were fully substantiated and documented at one time, but subject to continous [[vandalism]] by a [[clique]] determed to obscure that very fact. Over time, the influence of such cliques can be toxic and prevent any serious debate about policies. | |||