Claims of corruption

Wikipedia is the largest GFDL corpus access provider. It was usurped by Wikimedia from the actual GFDL corpus contributors in 2003.

What does usurping mean ? Stealing ownership ? How could that be since that thanks to the gfdl, contributors own the content ?

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.

please cite your sources. Who is that "it" ?

to support the claim of "increase" you first need to prove there is corruption. Then you should give measurable information to prove it effectively increase.

Evidence of Wikimedia corruption includes:

structural corruption

• many GFDL violations notably re attribution and access to source text and all improvements. See text liberation for more on this issue

• no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board";

false. Michael Davis is neither a developer, nor a sysop nor even an editor.

• no independent board members not affiliated with operations - the usual definition of an independent board is one that can judge operations objectively thus does not participate in them, operating as an avenue of appeal for any such decisions

false, Michael is not affiliated with operations

• Wikimedia Foundation not consulted when legally important decisions made, e.g. in response to Wikipedia being blocked in China, which is the biggest issue it has ever faced, the Jimmy Wales unilaterally "hereby authorize Andrew Lih to make a statement on our behalf", based on usual happy NPOV talk.

false, we discussed this offline. To be certain that decisions are unilaterally taken, you first need to know whether private discussions took place or not.

This was less than one day after the "election" of Wikimedia Board of Trustees who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.

It was more than one day as far as I remember

Please provide a valid argument to show that our opinion does not matter. The burden of proof is on you.

• release of carefully guarded MediaWiki bot code - used as a vandalbot for technological escalation against Recyclopedia and threatened against Wikinfo - post facto, attempted coverup with extremely selective event reporting in Wikipedia, false claims in the Wikipedia article nominally about Recyclopedia but with no mention of denial of service attacks or vandalbots that were the actual proximate cause of it becoming unusable

This was not done (if done at all) by Wikimedia itself. It does not prove its corruption consequently.

• 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.

• solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines - this violates US federal law which states clearly that only federally-registered charitable status entitles an organization to make such solicitations;

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.

...an issue debated on the Wikipedia mailing list but overruled by legal expert Jim Wales as per usual

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

• ad hominem revert allowed to stand, threats of IP blocks 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 source has little value.

• 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.

• total censorship of Wikipedia Red Faction - not even history now visible due to intimidation of this group

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

• attempted libel chill by labelling contents of this page "slander".

By Wikimedia itself ?

It is not slander ?

• several attempts to revert these claims without answering to them, proving there is no adequate response

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

recently dealt with

• withholding of information regarding link transit at Wikipedia which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a search engine like Bomis; several attempts to raise this issue have been suppressed; in September 2004 User:TimStarling did some code to start to deal with it.

have no idea of this myself.

since it is the only recent issue listed, I fail to see well how corruption has increased overtime.

individual corruption by officers

• Wales intimidating English Wikipedia User Secretlondon and sending email to chill her editorial point of view and become pro-American like Mr. Wales

Not a proof of Wikimedia corruption.

Jimbo Wales, as any human, is entitled to have personal opinions. He rarely voice them on purpose, to avoid intimidating people as he knows he has a high moral weight in the community. He certainly did not do it on purpose. Jimbo apologized to SL immediately after, and again when the issue erupted again.

chilling people is not usually a good weight to force them to become pro-american. This argument is real bad.

• libel chill by Wales, attempting to silence critics of his decisions and appointments, or even just those who point out GFDL violations by Wikimedia, e.g. accusing people who say Wikipedia violates GFDL as being guilty of libel against Wikimedia on the Wikipedia mailing list

uh ? Where ?

• Daniel Mayer was appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer on July 4, 2004; this individual is hardly credible as a reporter of facts or a guardian of any principles, given his long standing participation in echo chamber and libel pit activities; it strongly detracts from credibility of Wikimedia and Wikipedia when such a person is in charge of the books

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.

For issues with developers and others without official status, see Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption.

---

I suggest that all unsupported arguments given as proof are removed. Some of your claims may be right (though, I am not really certain which are), and if so, I think your feedback is interesting, but all the other ones loosen the credibility of those which may be correct.

Besides, keeping unsupported, or even defaming claims in this page, and in others, is threatening Juxo project credibility and viability. I recommand that you consider this issue with due respect.

Anthere.