Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

Claims of corruption (edit)

Revision as of 22:16, 10 September 2004

1,091 bytes removed , 10 September 2004

moving a para to deal with it

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,854

edits

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board";  while [[Michael Davis]] is not a developer, nor a sysop nor even an editor, he is also not an active end user or an advocate of [[usability]] - in fact his only qualification is his connection to Bomis corporation.
-*'''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, that Jimmy Wales unilaterally "hereby authorize [[Andrew Lih]] to make a statement on our behalf", based on [[usual happy NPOV talk]].
-::[[Wikimedia]] claims that this was discussed "offline" but no minutes or any report was made.  Abusively, their shills assert that "to be certain that decisions are unilaterally taken, you first need to know whether private discussions took place or not."  In other words, there is no such thing as a unilateral decision as assessed from outside - only the actual participants are ever able to say whether it was unilateral or not, and they may withhold proof that it was not at their leisure.  This is an obvious and total abuse of process.
-This was shortly after the "election" of [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.
 *users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count", e.g. only donors to [[Wikimedia]] can vote on their representatives