Talk:False and unsubstantiated claims

Consumerium Services have been pressured to label Wikimedia corruption charges as false and unsubstantiated. Most or all of which of these claims were fully substantiated and documented at one time, but subject to continous vandalism by a clique determed to obscure that very fact. Over time, the influence of such cliques can be toxic and prevent any serious debate about policies.

Actually to be precise the cases I have moved to FUCOC were either false in the light of yesterdays knowledge

This is not "knowledge", this is allegations by Angela Beesley and so on making claims LONG AFTER the fact, which may well be made up in order to cover up. These people lie literally every day: if you read their deletion logs and so on, you will see that they refer to trolls as if they were doing vandalism, they refer to new IP addresses as "banned users" and other nonsense that is just made up on the spot by themselves to excuse their sysop vandalism. To call claims "false" on this basis is to assume that what comes from Angela Beesley is somehow accurate and what comes from trolls isn't while in fact the opposite is almost always the case.

or unsubstantiated or simply not corruption by any sensible standards.

Claiming Wikimedia has an independent board is absolutely corrupt - it's quite clear that three of the five members have ties to Bomis, shares in it and so on.

Anthere was rather dissapointed that you stealthly diluted her responses to the claims you have posted, so it is you who is vandalising the pages that are supposed to present the truth, not just the personal hatered of one troll against a internet project which has succeeded so well that it begins to have political weight.

Sorry, correcting "allegation" to factual statement was accurate in all cases. If she wanted her edits left alone she should have signed each line, OR, done the corrections to the text and the official response separately. It is not up to trolls to figure out which elements of a frequently attacked and vandalized page have somehow become sacred.

And Wikipedia is NOT a success, it is NOT quotable by journalists as if it were a real encyclopedia, and it never will be with Wikimedia in charge. Comparable projects with an independent board like LongNow do very well by contrast and raise about fifty times more money a year than Wikipedia can, because of the boat anchor of Wikimedia corruption and its sysop power structure.

Why can't you admit that not everything you write around here is not true and

OK, we admit that not everything we write around here is not true, i.e. we are writing something other than lies.

thus may be proven to be false, a process which is taking up my time which would be better spent on figuring out the practical details needed to launch a Research Wiki pilot --Juxo 12:59, 10 Sep 2004 (EEST)

The real waste of time is your defense of the indefensible Wikimedia and its sysop vandalism.

Face it, if these people were not pressuring you, you would not care about this page at all, it would be just be another expose of a corrupt bogus charity.