Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

[[Wikipedia]] (www.wikipedia.org) is a "copyleft" encyclopedia that is collaboratively developed using wiki software. It is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. Wikipedia is managed and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

The following article falsely claims the encyclopedic project was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] from the actual [[GFDL corpus]] contributors in 2003.  This is clearly untrue based on any serious reading of the history, but the author of this document, known generally as 142 after his ip number, was banned from wikipedia for reasons that should be obvious from what he writes here and elsewhere.  It is fair to say that he has a personal vendetta against Wikipedia and Wikimedia and especially Jimbo Wales.

Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to those contributors and users, and to be serving the agenda of its [[sysop power structure]] instead.  ''Many'' specific allegations have been posted to the [[Wikipedia mailing list]], ''far'' too many to list here, and these seem to have increased in number over time.  This list includes only the most egregious and legally actionable allegations:

*''allegation:'' users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count"

::False. These are discussed on mailing lists, on meta and more and more on irc. Granted, information feedback is far from perfect. In any cases, the development of MediaWiki is not in the hand of Wikimedia itself. So, this argument, if it were true, would not be the proof of Wikimedia corruption.

:::Mailing list users are not wiki users.  This has been downgraded to an allegation since it is contingent on realizing that.

::Granted, 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.

:::We are not your lawyer.  We are not your advisor.  Ignore this allegation at your peril.

::An accusation made with no back up links has no validity and cannot be questionned. It consequently constitute defaming. "As per usual" is a fallacious argument as well, with no source.

:::[[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]].

*''Allegation:'' [[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims

::Beside of being made with no source, I guess that again, this is not a proof of Wikimedia corruption either.

:::It is quite easy to find claims that "person X is user Y wrote text Z" all over the place, and since "Z" is often characterized in ways like "untrue", "false", "[[spun death threat|death threat]]", etc., that is a very serious allegation against the character of X, especially if the claims that "X is Y" or "Y wrote Z" are themselves based only on an [[echo chamber]].  Many innocent people are being attacked and libelled by slack enforcement of [[standard of evidence]] on [[Wikipedia mailing list]] and other Wiki-media run by you.

*''Allegation:'' tolerance of extensive [[sysop vandalism]] by almost the entire [[sysop power structure]]

::Do not confuse Wikimedia and Jimbo here. Jimbo has a moral weight on all of us editors, so is in effect tolerant of most matters, which allowed the creativity of all editors to fully express. As for Wikimedia board, it is not supposed to have impact on how the projects are run at the fine level. It is not its role. Its role is to be a legal structure to collect money and decide of its uses. It is also to own the plysical architecture, and to legally protect the project if necessary. It also plays a role in promotion. It does not have the right to take care of fine in-project management. Consequently, this tolerance by Jimbo ay be good or bad, but is no sign of corruption, and is irrelevant to Wikimedia itself.

:::Oh, so it only "collects money" and spends it, and covers up the fact that the actual mission that motivates the cash and content contributors is being constantly undermined by a [[clique]]?  That is not governance, it is corrupt.

*''Allegation:'' tolerance of extensive [[sysop vigilantiism]] and contemplation of more serious [[developer vigilantiism]]

::Same answer. Will add that Wikimedia can protect what it physically own. I see not where the corruption stands here either

:::It does not "physically own" [[GFDL corpus]] contributions and has no right to restrict access to them under that [[share-alike]] license.  Each [[mirror]] has the same right to access the same contributions without [[Wikipedia]]'s own [[sysop power structure]] politics undoing improvements and corrections that are provably improving the corpus.   

*''Allegation:'' [[ad hominem delete]] without process, recently spread to [[Meta-Wikipedia]]

::Wikimedia is not responsible of micro-management. Board members have separate activity as board members and editors. You may accuse them of wrong doing, but it has no relation with Wikimedia itself. Jimbo basically never come to meta.  

:::If you aren't responsible, you aren't responsible, period.  When have you ever bothered to [[desysop]] someone for abuse of power?  Hmm?  Never?  How are you doing [[governance]] then?  That in itself is enough evidence of corruption:  a "board" that actually does not supervise anything or anyone, and lets them run amok and do damage to the [[wiki mission]] via [[sysop vandalism]].

*''Allegation:'' [[ad hominem revert]] allowed to stand, threats of [[IP block]]s against any who reinstate them for whatever reason (including the fact that they are just correct)

::same comment. This is micro management. Plus, an accusation without sources has little value.

:::With literally dozens of liars and thugs and libellers and [[spin doctor]]s running around removing all links to the sources, deleting them, etc. it is your responsibility, not our responsibility, to keep these [[Talk page]] comments visible so that the people who issue the threats and make the ad hominem arguments can be kept out of the [[sysop power structure]].  It was MANY times restated by [[Erik Moeller]] that those who reinstated [[troll text]] would be themselves subject to [[IP block]]s.  But Moeller remains a sysop so this must be considered "policy" on your part.

*''Allegation:'' U.S. and U.K. centric editorial policy, set by people who speak only English

::false. I see not even the need to argue with this argument. Plus, Wikimedia does not drive editorial policy.

:::This is a lie.  Obviously its policies determine who participates, and Wales writes Secretlondon, and [[trolls]] are "banned for life" and so forth, and all of this is MUCH more likely to happen to people who argue against the [[EPOV]] - never mind that they must do so in English.

::well not answer to this; know not enough about it.

:::Look up the various "requests" made of [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] and how his attempt to suggest [[wiki regime change]] was ultimately censored.

::By Wikimedia itself ?

:::Parties friendly to [[Wikimedia]] are difficult to tell apart.  Also it is hard to tell when someone has been intimidated into covering up your behaviour.

:::Read the definitions of [[libel]] and [[slander]] they are extremely clear.

::I answered them. Will detail more if necessary. Fallacious argument : not answering is no proof the claims are correct.

 

:::This is the FIRST time ANY officer of [[Wikimedia]] has answered them, after DOZENS of attempts to simply censor them.  Your own response is inadequate in many respects, and includes many attempts to [[spin]] things (like labelling as "allegation" the supporting [[fact]]s themselves which no one has disputed).

::Not a proof of Wikimedia corruption.

:::He should have said nothing.  He should have known that to speak was to intimidate.  He chose to pretend that he did not know that.  The fact that [[Wikimedia]] does not restrain Mr. Wales is proof that it is merely his own vehicle.

::uh ? Where ?

:::There was a specific link to a specific mailing list posting, deleted in one of the usual attacks on this page.  Look it up yourself.  It's not an allegation, it's a simple fact, Wales said he wanted people to file complaints with Florida's [[charitable status]] regulator so he could sue them for libel.  That is libel chill, and it is not allegation.

::Certainly, Daniel is not credible in your eyes, but is credible in other people eyes. If credibility is lower for some people, well, that is unfortunate, but not anyone can be pleased. Credibility, still, is one thing, corruption is another. Do you have proof of corruption from him ? If not, this should be moved as a lack of credibility claim, not a corruption proof.

:::It is not a question of whose "eyes" are involved:  Mayer is objectively guilty of [[libel]] and of using false claims to police to intimidate people.  You have accepted an incompetent and petulant person in a position of authority, and that is corrupt in itself.  Why?  Could it be that no one who is competent will take on the task he offered to take on?

:Here is the deal:  the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] agrees to take legal action against all who publish [[libel]] via its media, or who have done so, starting with [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Daniel Mayer]] who should recieve stern official warning letters from you immediately.  They are removed from all positions of [[authority]] and publicly shamed.  Wales apologizes to various people he has intimidated.  All remaining developers and sysops swear in writing that they had nothing to do with [[vandalbot]] or [[denial of service attack]]s or the [[vandalism]] of [[troll-friendly]] wikis unfriendly to [[Wikimedia]] including [[Consumerium]] and [[Recyclopedia]].  These are collected in writing and the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] states as policy that no one who engages in any kind of [[technological escalation]] against [[Wikimedia]] critics is sanctioned by it or will ever receive any support from it.  THEN we will bother listing all the claims, as we will be reasonably sure that they will stand without attacks nor censorship.  THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE?  Complaints directly to Florida regulators.  The choice is yours.  This is the only deal anyone will offer you.