Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,844
edits
False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption: Difference between revisions
False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption (edit)
Revision as of 15:46, 28 September 2004
, 28 September 2004revert. show the law(s) they are breaking and this will move to Claims of corruption, you may not be Wikimedia's lawyer, but you should be our cousel to avoid libel charges
(merged with 142.177.X.X's critique and responded to critique. attempting an constructive approach) |
(revert. show the law(s) they are breaking and this will move to Claims of corruption, you may not be Wikimedia's lawyer, but you should be our cousel to avoid libel charges) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::This is wrong. They are corrupt because they did not WANT to initially. A non-corrupt organization does not have to be asked to release election result data. | ::This is wrong. They are corrupt because they did not WANT to initially. A non-corrupt organization does not have to be asked to release election result data. | ||
:::They released it for the part that matters: Who got elected. I too think it is shady not to release full results immediatelly after they have been counted --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:34, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST) | |||
The partially released [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000370.html results] of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] "election" proves what [[trolls]] have always said: it is a front for the [[sysop power structure]]: | The partially released [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000370.html results] of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] "election" proves what [[trolls]] have always said: it is a front for the [[sysop power structure]]: | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ===Motivation for critiqued practice=== | ||
This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly. | |||
:Sorry, this was true when written, and, full disclosure is full disclosure. What were they trying to hide? --[[142.177.X.X]] | |||
::See above --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:34, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST) | |||
Whether they succeeded in hiding it or not. It appears they were trying to hide just how many cronies could use their cronyism to score high in this "election" | |||
::The full disclosure of vote counts does not resolve this question. In case one would study who voted, one could construct an credible attack on the integrity of the vote by claiming either/and that [[sock puppet]]s voted (impossible to avoid in an open [[wiki]]) or that good votes were cast away as duplicates (vote rigging)--[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:34, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST) | |||
===Resolution to claim being false=== | ===Resolution to claim being false=== | ||
After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] | |||
*Claim proved false and moved to [[Talk:Wikimedia_corruption]] claims on '''14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)''' | *Claim proved false and moved to [[Talk:Wikimedia_corruption]] claims on '''14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)''' | ||
*'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | *'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | ||
::Again from [[Sysop Vandal point of view]]. Only to the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]] does a claim correct when made and referencing the intent of people become 'False' when those people are finally forced to give in. If you steal something and lie about it, and I say you are a thief, then, you give it back, does the claim that you are a thief become a "false claim"? | |||
:::Let me put it this way. Claim is no longer correct. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:34, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST) | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 108: | Line 118: | ||
::I see is that there is no other thing to do exept to assume people are telling the truth. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:18, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ::I see is that there is no other thing to do exept to assume people are telling the truth. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:18, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ||
===Resolution to being a false claim=== | ===Resolution to being a false claim=== | ||
| Line 119: | Line 127: | ||
**'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:50, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST) | **'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:50, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST) | ||
---- | |||
==Unsubstantiated claim: Donations from outside of Florida to Wikimedia foudation violates federal law== | |||
Unsubstantiated claim: 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; | |||
::Response by Anthere: 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. | |||
:::Response by [[142.177.X.X]] to Anthere (apparently): 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. | |||
===Motivation for critiqued practice and debate about it=== | |||
::This and other accusations, which have frequently been made by [[142.177.X.X|a notorious Wikipedia critic]], were discussed extensively in [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-May/015211.html this mailing list post] by Jimbo Wales, which he summarised thus: ''In short, if anyone has *any* questions or concerns about legal or financial matters, I ask you to please write to me privately and express those concerns openly and honestly, so that I can resolve anything of this sort to everyone's satisfaction. If, after you've talked with me privately, you find that you have any remaining issues that you don't feel I've addressed, then by all means I encourage you to go public with your complaints. That's my biggest problem, really, with what this troll is doing. He's issuing a lot of lies (anonymously of course) and insinuations, attempting to make a public stink, rather than honestly and simply raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner. I don't actually fear any actual legal action, because in order to file a legal action, he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him. Anyhow, really, I wanted to say all this because I want you you all to know my keen interest in openness, transparency, fairness, etc. I want to do whatever I need to do to make sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is looked to as a shining example of how a nonprofit should be run, with tight attention paid to expenses, good stewardship of donor money, etc.''. --Unknown | |||
...an issue debated on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] but overruled by legal expert Jim Wales as per usual | |||
::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. | |||
:::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]]. | |||
===Resolution to being a unsubstatiated claim=== | |||
*Until someone delievers '''precise links to the federal law''' text that substantiates this claim (and Florida state law if it provides some insight to this as well) it is considered unsubstantiated. | |||
*There is nothing in [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Not-for-profit_corporation en: Wikinfo: Not-for-profit corporation] or [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Non-profit_organization en: Wikinfo Non-profit organisation] to support the claim that there is any wrong doing in this issue. | |||
**'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 19:52, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST) | |||