Talk:Claims of corruption

142, please provide specifics and references for these claims.

Most are now attributed or otherwise verified. Blanking this page just proves there is no answer to some claims other than "yes, these claims are true, and Wikimedia just wants to libel chill them away"

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!

---

• 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.

1. Jimbo no longer works for Bomis, thus he has no employees at Bomis
2. Michael Davis never worked there
3. 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.

---

Moved issues with developer vigilantiism and others without official status:

• appointment of Tim Starling as "developer liaison" presumably to ensure that any features to reinforce sysop power structure will be high priority, and those that would distribute more power to users would become low priority

Participation here somewhat mollifies these concerns, however, Starling retains some IP range blocks that are evidence of usurper status.

• Erik Moeller nearly appointed to some "special" status after losing an election, permitted to engage in frequent pro-Wikimedia libel activities, e.g. at Webby Awards, and also engaging in libel chill, e.g. describing trolls as engaged in libel against Wikimedia for simply telling truth.

how can one libel an organization whose sole purpose seems to be libel? Hmm.

---

Is it actually acceptable to simply remove Erik Moeller and Daniel Mayer publicly? Will those subjected to libel by these people actually back off if they are publicly removed and Wales apologizes? Or is Wales, himself, the ultimate problem, due to his history as a GodKing and so on?

Trolls are unlikely to all agree on this. Perhaps the debate on a negotiated settlement between trolls and Wikimedia should be very public.

If Consumerium Governance Organization brokers such a deal, its prestige will rise, and it will effectively be more trusted than Wikimedia by defn.