Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Claims of corruption (edit)

Revision as of 14:25, 29 September 2004

3,272 bytes removed , 29 September 2004

rm usurped by... someone must hold some control or anarchy reigns supreme.

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,842

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+'''This article is mainly authored by a widely known [[wiki]] [[troll]] here known as [[142.177.X.X]]. S/he has numerous times expressed fierce opposition to [[Wikipedia]]/[[Wikimedia]] and belittlement of the worthy accomplishements of Wikipedia as a fairly reliable wealth of information. S/he got [[ban]]ned from all Wikipedia wikis a long time ago in accordance with their policy due to allegedly making a death threat. This article does in no way represent the official view(s) of [[Consumerium:Itself|Consumerium project]] (actually "official consumerium view" does not even exist yet). Some clearly and provably false and/or unsubstantiated accusations have been moved to [[False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption]] amid fierce opposition from 142.177.X.X''' --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] [[Lowest Troll|The Lowest Troll of Consumerium]]
+==Claims concerning Wikipedia/Wikimedia==
 [[Wikipedia]] (www.wikipedia.org) is a user interface to a "[[copyleft]]" or [[share-alike]] encyclopedia that is collaboratively developed using wiki software.  Most [[GFDL corpus]] contributions move through Wikipedia channels:
-It is also the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]].  Wikipedia is "managed and operated" by the non-profit [[Wikimedia Foundation]] which is registered (only) in the state of Florida, USA.
+It is also the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]].  Wikipedia is managed and operated by the non-profit corporation [[Wikimedia Foundation]] which is registered in the state of Florida, USA.
-The encyclopedic project was alleged by some to have been [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]], a group or [[clique]] or [[cabal]] of [[sysop]]s or administrators, from the actual [[GFDL corpus]] contributors in 2003.  Some of these allege that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] and has abused their contributions - there is some talk of a [[class action suit]] to this effect.
 Since the creation of [[Wikimedia]] by [[Daniel Mayer]], it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to those contributors and users, and to be serving the agenda of its [[sysop power structure]] instead.  ''Many'' specific allegations have been posted to the [[Wikipedia mailing list]], ''far'' too many to list here, and these seem to have increased in number over time.  This list includes only the most egregious and legally actionable allegations:
@@ Line 14: / Line 17: @@
 *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
@@ Line 26: / Line 23: @@
 :::Countered:  Mailing list users are not wiki users.  This has been downgraded to an allegation since it is contingent on realizing that.
-*solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines - this violates US federal law which states clearly that only federally-registered [[charitable status]] entitles an organization to make such solicitations;
-::Response:  Granted, [[English Wikipedia User Anthere|I[[ do not know if this is true. Please provide the relevant article in the law. The federal registration is under way. If it were true, it would be a legal issue, not a sign of corruption as nothing is hidden. People pay willingly, the near entirety of the money is used according to donators will and the uses made with the money are absolutely transparent. COnsequently, not only is this accusation doubtful, but even if it were true, it constitute defaming to make an accusation of corruption.
-:::Response:  We are not your lawyer.  We are not your advisor.  Ignore this allegation at your peril.  We are not here to provide you legal advice, just to warn you that the truth is known and will be used to destroy your organization and discredit your friends.  You are of course attempting [[libel chill]] by using the word "[[defaming]]":  it is perfectly legitimate to assume that an organization that is breaking one law, as you appear to be, is breaking another.
-...an issue debated on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]] but overruled by legal expert Jim Wales as per usual
-::Response:  An accusation made with no back up links has no validity and cannot be questioned. It consequently constitute defaming. "As per usual" is a fallacious argument as well, with no source.
-:::Counter:  It's very easy to find Wales spouting his own legal opinions and imposing them on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]].  You are just looking for an excuse to deny this, you aren't seriously investigating the claim as if you cared (which you don't, according to you, Wales is just fine as a lawyer for a major encyclopedia that often publishes questionable statements about people).[[Trolls]] will provide evidence to the state of Florida on this issue, not to you.  We are not going to do your own due diligence for you unless we are directly paid by you to [[audit]] your organization's complaince with the law.  You have guaranteed that this complaint will be made with your attitude.  If we were to provide "back up links" it is likely that you would simply censor the evidence itself as a typical cover-up.  We are by no means intimidated by your use of the word "defaming", as you are yourselves liars who defame constantly.  In a fair court process, we are confident that our friends will prevail against your friends, since our friends do not solicit donations for charitable reasons and then spend them publishing [[libel]].
 *[[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims