Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption: Difference between revisions
False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption (edit)
Revision as of 15:42, 9 September 2004
, 9 September 2004moved the "no independent board on wikimedia" basis of moving "not a sign of corruption" but pragmatism
(the "wikimedia withholding election results") |
(moved the "no independent board on wikimedia" basis of moving "not a sign of corruption" but pragmatism) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*withholding full [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] election results from the voters! [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000360.html apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo] the [[GodKing]] of Wikimedia and Bomis | *withholding full [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] election results from the voters! [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000360.html 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=== | ===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. | ::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. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*Claim proved false and moved to [[Talk:Wikimedia_corruption]] claims on '''14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)''' | *Claim proved false and moved to [[Talk:Wikimedia_corruption]] claims on '''14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)''' | ||
*Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST) | *'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|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. | |||
*'''Claim moved to [[FUCOC]] by and on --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:42, 9 Sep 2004 (EEST)''' | |||