Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

    From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
    (the link transit progress shows that documenting these issues can result in some progress - it is neither axiomatic that Wikimedia is corrupt nor inevitable, let these issues stand for resolution)
    No edit summary
    Line 1: Line 1:
    '''N.B. there are certain [[evil trolls]] who assert that Wikimedia may not be corrupt.  Take care while reading this page to not fall prey to their [[propaganda]].'''
    [[[[Wikipedia]] is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]].  It was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] in 2003.  Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to contributors and users.  Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes:
    [[[[Wikipedia]] is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]].  It was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] in 2003.  Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to contributors and users.  Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes:



    Revision as of 16:35, 6 September 2004

    N.B. there are certain evil trolls who assert that Wikimedia may not be corrupt. Take care while reading this page to not fall prey to their propaganda.

    [[Wikipedia is the largest GFDL corpus access provider. It was usurped by Wikimedia in 2003. Since then it has been alleged to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to contributors and users. Evidence of Wikimedia corruption includes:

    structural corruption

    recently dealt with

    • withholding of information regarding link transit at Wikipedia which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a search engine like Bomis; several attempts to raise this issue have been suppressed; in September 2004 User:TimStarling did some code to start to deal with it.

    individual corruption by officers

    For issues with developers and others without official status, see Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption.