False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption
False claim: Wikimedia holding Board Vote results is a sign of corruption
False claim: Wikimedia is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows:
The partially released results of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees "election" proves what trolls have always said: it is a front for the sysop power structure:
- withholding full Wikimedia Board of Trustees election results from the voters! apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo the GodKing of Wikimedia and Bomis
Filed by 142.177.X.X date yet to be determined
Motivation for critiqued practice
- This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly.
- Sorry, this was true when written, and, full disclosure is full disclosure. What were they trying to hide? Whether they succeeded in hiding it or not. It appears they were trying to hide just how many cronies could use their cronyism to score high in this "election"
Resolution to claim being false
- After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --Juxo
- Claim proved false and moved to Talk:Wikimedia_corruption claims on 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)
- Claim moved to FUCOC by and on --Juxo 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)
Claim not a sign of corruption: No independent board in Wikimedia
- no independent board members not affiliated with operations or Bomis - 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;
Filed by 142.177.X.X date yet to be determined
Motivation for critiqued practice
One can not realistically that the first board of a new foundation would consist of any members who are not heavily involved and experienced in the area the board is supposed to be overseeing. Time for moving away from affiliated board members is when the foundation elects it's next board. Do not expect CGO to consist of any other then heavily involved people, this would be unrealistical and unproductive if the board members had no experience or involevement with the
Resolution to not a sign of corruption
Based on the motivation for having an initial board consisting of people affiliated with the real action the foundation is succesfully supporting.
Unsubstatiated and later on false claim of Wikimedia withholding valuable link transit data in favor of commercial interests of Bomis
- False Claim: 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.
Motivation for critiqued practice
No one has requested this information. It is not analysed by Wikimedia or anyone else (eg. Bomis) currently according to several (unnamed per request) MediaWiki developers with shell access to all machines. Also Read link transit. Where User:TimStarling has come up with some code to implement part of the functionality that the false claim states to be in the posession and use of Wikimedia or Bomis.
Resolution to being a false claim
See above motivation and link transit. It seems likely that this information will soon be made available to all interested parties
False claim: Wikimedia holding Board Vote results is a sign of corruption
False claim: Wikimedia is corrupt because it did not originally release full records of the Board Vote. Claim was stated as follows:
The partially released results of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees "election" proves what trolls have always said: it is a front for the sysop power structure:
- withholding full Wikimedia Board of Trustees election results from the voters! apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo the GodKing of Wikimedia and Bomis
Filed by 142.177.X.X date yet to be determined
Motivation for critiqued practice
- This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly.
- Sorry, this was true when written, and, full disclosure is full disclosure. What were they trying to hide? Whether they succeeded in hiding it or not. It appears they were trying to hide just how many cronies could use their cronyism to score high in this "election"
Resolution to claim being false
- After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --Juxo
- Claim proved false and moved to Talk:Wikimedia_corruption claims on 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)
- Claim moved to FUCOC by and on --Juxo 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)
Claim not a sign of corruption: No independent board in Wikimedia
- no independent board members not affiliated with operations or Bomis - 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;
Filed by 142.177.X.X date yet to be determined
Motivation for critiqued practice
One can not realistically that the first board of a new foundation would consist of any members who are not heavily involved and experienced in the area the board is supposed to be overseeing. Time for moving away from affiliated board members is when the foundation elects it's next board. Do not expect CGO to consist of any other then heavily involved people, this would be unrealistical and unproductive if the board members had no experience or involevement with the
Resolution to not a sign of corruption
Based on the motivation for having an initial board consisting of people affiliated with the real action the foundation is succesfully supporting.
Unsubstatiated and later on false claim of Wikimedia withholding valuable link transit data in favor of commercial interests of Bomis
- False Claim: 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.
Motivation for critiqued practice
No one has requested this information. It is not analysed by Wikimedia or anyone else (eg. Bomis) currently according to several (unnamed per request) MediaWiki developers with shell access to all machines. Also Read link transit. Where User:TimStarling has come up with some code to implement part of the functionality that the false claim states to be in the posession and use of Wikimedia or Bomis.
Resolution to being a false claim
See above motivation and link transit. It seems likely that this information will soon be made available to all interested parties
Flase Claim: 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, 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.
Resolution of the claim being false
of newly elected board being dismissed from formulating a strategy to deal with the issue according to Engish Wikpedia user Angela she received information on this situation two weeks before the authorization was made by Jimmy.
- Claim moved to FUCOC by and on --Juxo 11:27, 11 Sep 2004 (EEST) 04:53, 11 Sep 2004 (EEST)