Talk:Article hub: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
When [[CGO]] exists, the time will come to consolidate what is known and get away from issues with personalities, though warnings about toxic personalities and power figures who have unjust authority must remain... the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] can continue [[trolling]] [[Wikimedia]] and this should be tolerated here until there is a safe base for them that is not being hacked by [[vandalbot]]s. If there is any [[libel]] it is of the [[trolls]] - where is there ANY STATEMENT ABOUT ANY WIKIMEDIA SYSOP THAT IS NOT TRUE? There are truths they don't like, and, there are allusions and circumstantial evidence that they don't like, but, under all this pressure, everything has become very exactly stated and detailed - even the arguments between pairs of people are relatively clear and to the point and useful to read. | When [[CGO]] exists, the time will come to consolidate what is known and get away from issues with personalities, though warnings about toxic personalities and power figures who have unjust authority must remain... the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] can continue [[trolling]] [[Wikimedia]] and this should be tolerated here until there is a safe base for them that is not being hacked by [[vandalbot]]s. If there is any [[libel]] it is of the [[trolls]] - where is there ANY STATEMENT ABOUT ANY WIKIMEDIA SYSOP THAT IS NOT TRUE? There are truths they don't like, and, there are allusions and circumstantial evidence that they don't like, but, under all this pressure, everything has become very exactly stated and detailed - even the arguments between pairs of people are relatively clear and to the point and useful to read. | ||
-------------- | |||
Consider this: all the [[troll]] research on [[Wikimedia]], [[Wikipedia]] and the way [[Bomis]] has created [[Wikimedia corruption]] is true. But it would only be considered "opinion" by the [[usurper]]s who set up this situation. In a court of law, every last thing said about Wikimedia here would be proven true, and it could be proven to be "research". But in very few cases would anyone ever get around to such a decision: in general, the difference between "opinion" and "research" is who you trust, i.e. which [[faction]], and if you have a bias towards [[trolls]] and the [[New Troll point of view]] or the [[sysop power structure]] and its invented idea of [[neutral point of view]], which means only "that which does not offend sysops so much that they ban those who challenge it" - in other words, [[systemic bias]] of [[insider culture]]. | |||
Imagine as a [[test case]], the criticism of [[Bomis]] going through the [[Research Wiki]] process and coming to the [[Publish Wiki]] so that it would be advice to not patronize [[Bomis Corporation]], because it is suppressing all the [[GFDL corpus access provider|other wikipedias]]. This request to [[Boycott Bomis]] would go somewhere - where? How would it be scored or voted on? What would be the ultimate role of the [[CGO]] in adjudicating the score? | |||