Talk:Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions
(all claims are "substantiated" in that the prima facie evidence is easy to establish for oneself - whether it represents corruption or not is what is alleged, but facts are undisputed) |
(moving Moeller and Starling concerns as they are not officers of Wikimedia) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
142, please provide specifics and references for these claims. | 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 list]]s 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]]. | :Doing so for new claims; However, since lies, [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] fraud are freely spread on [[vile mailing list]]s 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]]. | ||
| Line 84: | Line 86: | ||
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. | 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 block]]s 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. | |||