False and unsubstantiated claims - Revision history

Jukeboksi: moving last para to talk-page

2004-09-10T09:52:13Z

moving last para to talk-page

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:52, 10 September 2004
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.

142.177.109.161 at 17:31, 9 September 2004

2004-09-09T17:31:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 9 September 2004
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 ''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.		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 [[Consumerium Process\|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 or collective identity]] are the most common, and hardest to control, given the mutability of [[identity on the Internet]].		Of all such claims, those regarding [[alleged and 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:

142.177.109.161 at 17:30, 9 September 2004

2004-09-09T17:30:28Z

New page

'''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 ''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 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:

*[[libel chill]]
*[[libel]] suits
*[[class action suit]]s
*[[hate speech]] charges

=== use of this phrase to intimidate ===

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.