Talk:Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:35, 19 August 2004

142, please provide specifics and references for these claims.

Doing so for new claims; However, since lies, libel and echo chamber fraud are freely spread on vile mailing lists run by Wikimedia without any such specifics or references, it might be abusive to require such documentation from their opponents; most specific references are in the sub-articles using the most infamous Wikimedia clowns as the universal bad example for how not to do wiki governance.

Is being blocked in China evidence of corruption? hm. Trolls would say no, but, sysop power structure would have to respect China's power structure and their pet sysops who are their friends in fascist power plays. - hail to the red faction!

The partially released results of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees "election" proves what trolls have always said: it is a front for the sysop power structure:

"The top 3 for contributing rep were:

Anthere 269 Eloquence 258 (Erik Moeller) Maveric149 163 ((Daniel Mayer)

The top 2 for for volunteer rep:

Angela 345 (Auntie Angela) Maveric149 159" (Daniel Mayer)

Moved from Wikimedia corruption

withholding full Wikimedia Board of Trustees election results from the voters! apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo the GodKing of Wikimedia and Bomis

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? 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"

After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --Juxo 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)

no independent board free of influence from Bomis.com - although "two of the current trustees don't seem to be active Wikimedians", those being sock puppet votes of Jimbo Wales: his employees at that corporation.

Jimbo no longer works for Bomis, thus he has no employees at Bomis
Michael Davis never worked there
Only Bomis employee on the board is Tim Shell

What absolute nonsense - Wales *OWNS* Bomis. And Davis has shares too apparently. This is a fairly transparent and bogus attempt to create a false front organization. And again, what are they hiding? Surely they realize they're doing something wrong, if they're quitting and pretending to set up these structures.

Ok. Ownership naturally leads to some power over current employees, but may I remind once again that it is not true that two of the independent board members work for Bomis.com, only Tim Shell works there

How about this: [1]

"Mayer said: "At Wikipedia the authors and administrators of our content enforce the GNU FDL by searching for infringes and contacting them. At first we use a friendly form letter, then a more sternly worded letter, and finally a very stern letter. Usually this works, but some web sites are still in breach - we are still trying to figure out what to do with them".

It turns out that Wikipedia.org keeps a list of all its "mirrors and forks" here.

He continued: "I'm one of the Wikipedia administrators who informed WordIQ that they were breaking the terms of our license by not providing a link back to the Wikipedia original and not mentioning that their copied version of our articles were licensed under terms of the GNU FDL. After some time they did finally provide the link-backs and the mention/link to the GNU FDL that we were asking for."

He added: "At Wikipedia we use a very liberal interpretation of the GNU FDL in order to make it easier for people to copy our content"."

This is laughable. Wikipedia itself is in constant GFDL violation, and the license does *not* require "links back to the Wikipedia original", it requires access to the source text version of the article, which Wikipedia itself does not provide to all users.

What articles does it not provide the source for? (r3m0t)

There are many IP addresses from which the current article source is not retrievable. This is a "technical barrier" to its retrieval and is specifically forbidden by the GFDL.

Also, the source of a protected page is not retrievable from ANY IP address, and it is often exactly these that people would want to copy and begin to evolve in some other place. This is an attempt to claim a monopoly on the edits of very controversial pages and prevent people from exercising their right to fork off.

here is a list of all the sites they bully and harass into making themselves the centre of the GFDL corpus universe.

the following was added under

false claims added to Wikimedia article here, and true claims removed

Note that most false claims here have been made by 142.177.X.X who seems to be on a personal vendetta on Wikipedia for banning him for persistent non-encyclopedic edits in the past

This is itself a false claim. Almost all material contributed by the 142 range has remained in the encyclopedia and passed several ad hominem delete tests - that is, many people agree it belongs. Whatever issues there are with this material, it's not it's lack of encyclopedic relevance. Whenever 142 or similar material is removed, it's almost always ad hominem revert or ad hominem delete, that is, there is no valid reason to remove it at all, and requiring its removal is simply sysop vandalism.

Furthermore, the "vendetta" is beyond anything personal at this point, and includes whole factions such as the Wikipedia Red Faction, and even some sympathetic sysops who we do not name so they will not be targetted.

Developer payments are considered corruption by some. Obviously Erik Moeller is trying to get paid for doing whatever damage he wants to MediaWiki with charity money. It is not clear he will succeed at this damaging and being paid to do damaging.

It speaks to the credibility of this page that there is never any response to it except denial and censorship. Lies are told about trolls, and the Wikipedia Red Faction is censored off the entire net, everywhere, by the sysop power structure (woops forgot to add that), but no one ever responds substantially to allegations.

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?

Attempts to rename this page "unsubstantiated claims of..." are bogus. Most of what is alleged is actually rather easy to substantiate. For instance all you have to do to see a GFDL violation is try to retrieve source text of a single article from a blocked IP. It's obviously true that a search engine company like Bomis can use data on which articles are most popular - it's up to them to prove they AREN'T using it for advantage. And you can find most of the rest of the stuff in the vile mailing list archives. To demand "substantiation" for this kind of obvious observation is abusive.