Talk:Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions
moving Moeller and Starling concerns as they are not officers of Wikimedia
(all claims are "substantiated" in that the prima facie evidence is easy to establish for oneself - whether it represents corruption or not is what is alleged, but facts are undisputed) |
(moving Moeller and Starling concerns as they are not officers of Wikimedia) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
142, please provide specifics and references for these claims. | 142, please provide specifics and references for these claims. | ||
:: Most are now attributed or otherwise verified. Blanking this page just proves there is no answer to some claims other than "yes, these claims are true, and [[Wikimedia]] just wants to [[libel chill]] them away" | |||
:Doing so for new claims; However, since lies, [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] fraud are freely spread on [[vile mailing list]]s run by [[Wikimedia]] without any such specifics or references, it might be abusive to require such documentation from their opponents; most specific references are in the sub-articles using the most infamous [[Wikimedia]] clowns as the universal bad example for how not to do [[wiki governance]]. | :Doing so for new claims; However, since lies, [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] fraud are freely spread on [[vile mailing list]]s run by [[Wikimedia]] without any such specifics or references, it might be abusive to require such documentation from their opponents; most specific references are in the sub-articles using the most infamous [[Wikimedia]] clowns as the universal bad example for how not to do [[wiki governance]]. | ||
| Line 84: | Line 86: | ||
Attempts to rename this page "[[unsubstantiated claims]] of..." are bogus. Most of what is '''alleged''' is actually rather easy to substantiate. For instance all you have to do to see a [[GFDL violation]] is try to retrieve source text of a single article from a blocked IP. It's obviously true that a search engine company like [[Bomis]] can use data on which articles are most popular - it's up to them to prove they AREN'T using it for advantage. And you can find most of the rest of the stuff in the [[vile mailing list]] archives. To demand "substantiation" for this kind of obvious observation is abusive. | Attempts to rename this page "[[unsubstantiated claims]] of..." are bogus. Most of what is '''alleged''' is actually rather easy to substantiate. For instance all you have to do to see a [[GFDL violation]] is try to retrieve source text of a single article from a blocked IP. It's obviously true that a search engine company like [[Bomis]] can use data on which articles are most popular - it's up to them to prove they AREN'T using it for advantage. And you can find most of the rest of the stuff in the [[vile mailing list]] archives. To demand "substantiation" for this kind of obvious observation is abusive. | ||
------------ | |||
''Moved issues with [[developer vigilantiism]] and others without official status:'' | |||
*appointment of [[Tim Starling]] as "developer liaison" presumably to ensure that any features to reinforce [[sysop power structure]] will be high priority, and those that would distribute more power to users would become low priority | |||
:Participation here somewhat mollifies these concerns, however, Starling retains some [[IP range block]]s that are evidence of [[usurper]] status. | |||
*[[Erik Moeller]] nearly appointed to some "special" status after losing an election, permitted to engage in frequent pro-Wikimedia [[libel]] activities, e.g. at [[Webby Awards]], and also engaging in [[libel chill]], e.g. describing [[trolls]] as engaged in '''libel against Wikimedia''' for simply telling truth. | |||
:how can one libel an organization whose sole purpose seems to be libel? Hmm. | |||