...The claim that this representes the users is probably not. See [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] for more on this.
...[[sysop power structure]] and [[sysop vandalism]] and [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] for more on these specific breaches of stewardship.
965 bytes (146 words) - 17:50, 6 September 2004
...on]] commenting on the [[libel pit]] and [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|rolling GFDL violation]] that is '''Wikipedia'''.
783 bytes (116 words) - 21:54, 9 September 2004
...ation]] there is no way to interpret such a use of funds as anything but [[Wikimedia corruption]], should it occur, advancing the interests of officers not that
...roperty (donated works of [[GFDL contributor]]s) with [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|no legal basis for claiming ownership or control]], it would seem quite dif
1 KB (224 words) - 22:55, 9 September 2004
:[[Daniel Mayer]] - probably started the trend, root of much [[Wikimedia corruption]]
[[Ending Wikimedia]] might be the only way to get rid of these stupid people.
2 KB (359 words) - 21:26, 7 September 2004
Various reasons to escape [[GFDL]] hell:
*[[GFDL]] is worthless now since it has been [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|twisted so badly no one knows what it means or who has given permission for
1 KB (195 words) - 16:52, 28 September 2004
...des all the [[Wikipedia]]s, [[Wiktionary]] and other projects over which [[Wikimedia]] claims editorial jurisdiction. It also includes many that are not under
...]]. However it is not clear that it has acceded to standards set by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] re: which edits or which contributors should be supported or n
2 KB (270 words) - 21:23, 7 September 2004
...y [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]], by refusing to redistribute improvements to GFDL articles that are clearly "encyclopedic"
*it challenges the [[authority]] directly of [[Wikimedia]] and the [[sysop power structure]] to censor this material or restore arti
2 KB (290 words) - 00:23, 8 September 2004
:Which is EXACTLY, OBVIOUSLY what [[Wikimedia corruption]] is doing: they are leaning on you to censor things, they are
...ntil then, [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] is just as corrupt as [[Wikimedia]] since it accepts censorshop of [[w:Genuine Progress Indicator]] and other
2 KB (389 words) - 18:28, 9 September 2004
...robably chosen from those most offensive to [[sysop power structure]] of [[Wikimedia]]; ''See [[Wikipedia (Reds)]] for why.''
..., and who have sworn an oath not ever to [[Wikipedia violates GFDL|violate GFDL for purposes for reinforcing a clique]].
2 KB (377 words) - 18:09, 9 September 2004
...mmons''' [[parametric license]] regime is a more flexible alternative to [[GFDL]]. Its [[nonprofit]] [http://creativecommons.org .org] was founded by [[La
...sa''' license is normally considered to be the closest equivalent to the [[GFDL]] used here at [[Consumerium:Itself]]. Some advocate dual-licensing open c
5 KB (760 words) - 16:43, 28 September 2004
...on political grounds - which have no status and are no excuse under the [[GFDL]].
*The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], which has taken no steps at all to prevent use of names of uninvolved or
2 KB (348 words) - 17:43, 9 September 2004
[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot po
...e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].
3 KB (432 words) - 08:14, 26 September 2004
...a different question. And with fresh MediaWiki, not some crap GetWiki that violates GPL in many people's view.
...rpus]] in general. There is no chance that [[MediaWiki]], controlled by [[Wikimedia]], will make it easier to fix up articles damaged by their cabal. Their [[
8 KB (1,251 words) - 17:05, 4 August 2004
'''Wikimedia Foundation''' is a private tax-exempt corporation ([[not-for-profit project
Generally, its critics point to Wikimedia as a classic [[insider culture]], and '''''not a good model''''' for [[Cons
10 KB (1,627 words) - 07:36, 13 July 2010
...]]. S/he has numerous times expressed fierce opposition to [[Wikipedia]]/[[Wikimedia]] and belittlement of the worthy accomplishements of Wikipedia as a fairly
==Claims concerning Wikipedia/Wikimedia==
18 KB (2,843 words) - 14:25, 29 September 2004
...lse or unsubstantiated''' based on what is cited here. They are [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] issues that for some reason have been disputed or resolved or
==False claim: Wikimedia withholding Board Vote results is a sign of corruption==
18 KB (2,874 words) - 15:46, 28 September 2004
<li>15:21, 30 Sep 2004 [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] deleted "Talk:Wikipedia violates GFDL" <em>(archived. )</em></li>
<li>15:21, 30 Sep 2004 [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] deleted "Talk:Ending Wikimedia" <em>(archived)</em></li>
45 KB (6,313 words) - 16:28, 9 May 2005
...Wiki]] or [[Publish Wiki]]. Repeating the same old commentary of alleged [[Wikimedia corruption|corruption]] or [[Sysop vandalism|corruption]] or [[Developer vi
...rators 270] [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandals]] currently participating in [[Wikimedia corruption]]. -- [[142.177.something.something]]
21 KB (3,475 words) - 17:24, 25 September 2006
...ernment and explain exactly how [[Wikimedia corruption]] has damaged the [[GFDL Corpus]]. Maybe China will block it for good and criticize the [[sysop pow
...sues than attempted resolutions. The words of Mr. Wales in [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]] prove his [[libel chill]] attempt and his intent to censor any
17 KB (2,872 words) - 15:23, 6 July 2017