Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions
the link transit progress shows that documenting these issues can result in some progress - it is neither axiomatic that Wikimedia is corrupt nor inevitable, let these issues stand for resolution
No edit summary |
(the link transit progress shows that documenting these issues can result in some progress - it is neither axiomatic that Wikimedia is corrupt nor inevitable, let these issues stand for resolution) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It is | [[[[Wikipedia]] is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] in 2003. Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to contributors and users. Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes: | ||
=== structural corruption === | |||
*many [[GFDL violation]]s 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"; no [[independent board]] members not affiliated with operations | |||
*'''Wikimedia Foundation''' not consulted when legally important decisions made, e.g. [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000384.html 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]]. 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. | |||
*false claims added to [[Wikimedia]] article here, and true claims removed; several attempts to revert these claims without answering to them, proving there is no adequate response | |||
*[[technological escalation]] against [[Recyclopedia]] and threatened against [[Wikinfo]] - attempted coverup with extremely selective event reporting in [[Wikipedia]], false claims in article nominally about Recyclopedia but seeming to serve only to spread the story that did not include [[denial of service attack]]s with [[vandalbot]]s | |||
*users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count" | |||
*solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines - may violate US federal law | |||
*[[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims | |||
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vandalism]] most notably by [[Auntie Angela]] and [[Hephaestos]] | |||
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vigilantiism]] and contemplation of more serious [[developer vigilantiism]] | |||
*[[ad hominem delete]] without process, recently spread to [[Meta-Wikipedia]] | |||
*[[ad hominem revert]] allowed to stand | |||
*U.S. and U.K. centric editorial policy, set by people who speak only English | |||
*total censorship of [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] - not even history now visible due to intimidation of this group | |||
*attempted [[libel chill]] by labelling contents of this page "[[slander]]". | |||
=== 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. | |||
=== individual corruption by officers === | |||
*Wales intimidating [[English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]] for being "too anti-American" | |||
*[[libel chill]] by Wales, attempting to silence critics of his decisions and appointments, or even just those who point out [[GFDL violation]]s by Wikimedia, e.g. accusing people who say [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] as being guilty of '''libel against Wikimedia''' on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] | |||
*[[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 | |||
''For issues with developers and others without official status, see [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]].'' | |||