The specific echo chamber lies including the spun death threats of certain "high-ranking" Wikipedians, don't need to be mentioned here, as it was not Wales himself that necessarily did this (though he doesn't stop it or keep other such stuff from happening). This is however one of the most serious indications that their management problems are unsolvable with present people involved. This problem has been commented on by a lot of other people, including James Day who says "only a fool would fail to remove obvious malicious libel", e.g. claims about others' motives, spun death threats, as part of explaining the many legal issues involved in the various Wikimedia projects.
Removed claims that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it isn't. A "serious encyclopedia" has no visible "stubs", certainly does not let ad hominem rule over content in selection of articles, doesn't permit massive holes in key areas to persist for years, and doesn't let the community point of view of its employees overrule the good sense of historians, mathematicians, and etc.
Removed claims that Wiktionary is a dictionary - it isn't. A dictionary must define the simplest words in terms of other simple words, and it must define complex words in terms of the simpler words. Wiktionary has no such discipline. It has no w:defining vocabulary even for w:idiom dictionary purposes.
Further, the Simple English Wikipedia by failing to use staging or to apply such a defining vocabulary discipline (which would require about 2000 words), cannot serve as a basis for translation for culturally-rich articles. So this too is a fraud.
Failing to actually BE an encyclopedia and dictionary and basis for translation are the biggest issues anyone could reasonably raise with Wikimedia's projects, which are at this point simply pilot projects that have failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of the products they seek to replace. "Being free" is about all they can claim, and maybe not that, as it seems unlikely they can ever release a CD or print version due to copyright problems. Without, that is, pulling unethical tricks like Wikipedia suing itself, organizing contributors to pretend to fight the board, etc., etc.
Here is more proof of Wikimedia corruption, as if any is needed. These deletions were not discussed anywhere. "Eloquence" is a sysop vandal:
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Wiki lawyer": content was: 'A Wiki lawyer is someone who argues the rules incessantly with the sysop power structure. Sometimes this is worse than having a [[priestly ...')
- This article refers to an previously unknown term and therefore can be deleted as something that someone just thought up and decided to write an article on
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "WIPE syndrome")
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Troll-friendly")
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop power structure")
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop vandalism")
- Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive trolls
- That is not an excuse to make it impossible for anyone to discuss such issues as WIPE syndrome, troll-friendly, sysop power structure or sysop vandalism. The only reason to do this is to ensure that no one ever has vocabulary to question these decisions.
- Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive trolls
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Developer vigilantism")
- Hmmh?
- developer vigilantiism (yes it is one of those rare words like "skiing" that has an "ii" in it) was actually noted by Brion Vibber originally. Obviously Erik Moeller (the name he himself has attached to Eloquence) is in favour of such vigilantiism, and wishes Vibber's issue never to be discussed.
- Hmmh?
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "GFDL text corpus")
- The whole concept of GFDL text corpus is errored in it's assumption that all GFDL'd material somehow belongs to a "corpus" that does not distinguish between places of editorship such as Wikipedia, Wikinfo and Disinfopedia. All these places have been complained to be "corrupt" simply because they excersise editorial restraint so that all the noise does not render the signal useless, which is exactly what we intend to do a little for Research Wiki and more for Publish Wiki.
- That is legally wrong. GFDL Corpus does legally exist - it is that body of (almost entirely text) which permits cut and paste copying with no copyright inhibitions. Now, there are other requirements that apply to a GFDL corpus access provider, and yes, there are editorial standards specific to those providers or their product. It is only when those providers fail to enforce the standards required to ensure them, that they become corrupt in the sense of Wikimedia corruption. For instance to desysop the sysop vandal or developer vigilante, or put controls on sysop vigilantes. It is Wikimedia's total failure to do this which has led to them being "corrupt".
- In any case, the issue is clearly complex enough to require discussion. If you go to en: Wikinfo: GFDL corpus you find they are not so dedicated to destroying the idea of one corpus with some unified standards. But they are not trying to monopolize and control the corpus - notice that Moeller himself is actually the Wikimedia representative for "content relationships", meaning, in a conflict of interest when some standards neither Wikimedia nor he himself define are discussed.
- (diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Trollherd")
- Trollherd is not relevant to Wikipedia mission in Eloquence's mind. Whether this is bad judgement is up to oneself to decide.
- This is not the process of deletion followed generally on meta. This is a usurper, usurping.