Jump to content

Talk:Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

Talk:Claims of corruption (view source)

Revision as of 13:36, 26 August 2016

9,674 bytes added ,  26 August 2016
m
Protected "Talk:Claims of corruption": Excessive spamming ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite))
(all claims are "substantiated" in that the prima facie evidence is easy to establish for oneself - whether it represents corruption or not is what is alleged, but facts are undisputed)
 
m (Protected "Talk:Claims of corruption": Excessive spamming ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)))
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
142, please provide specifics and references for these claims.
142, please provide specifics and references for these claims.
:: Most are now attributed or otherwise verified.  Blanking this page just proves there is no answer to some claims other than "yes, these claims are true, and [[Wikimedia]] just wants to [[libel chill]] them away"


:Doing so for new claims;  However, since lies, [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] fraud are freely spread on [[vile mailing list]]s run by [[Wikimedia]] without any such specifics or references, it might be abusive to require such documentation from their opponents;  most specific references are in the sub-articles using the most infamous [[Wikimedia]] clowns as the universal bad example for how not to do [[wiki governance]].
:Doing so for new claims;  However, since lies, [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] fraud are freely spread on [[vile mailing list]]s run by [[Wikimedia]] without any such specifics or references, it might be abusive to require such documentation from their opponents;  most specific references are in the sub-articles using the most infamous [[Wikimedia]] clowns as the universal bad example for how not to do [[wiki governance]].
Line 7: Line 9:
----
----


The partially released [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000370.html results] of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] "election" proves what [[trolls]] have always said:  it is a front for the [[sysop power structure]]:
"The top 3 for contributing rep were:
Anthere  269
Eloquence 258  ([[Erik Moeller]])
Maveric149 163  (([[Daniel Mayer]])
The top 2 for for volunteer rep:
Angela  345  ([[Auntie Angela]])
Maveric149 159"  ([[Daniel Mayer]])
----
Moved from [[Wikimedia corruption]]
*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]]
::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"
::::After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)


*no [[independent board]] free of influence from [[Bomis.com]] - although [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000371.html "two of the current trustees don't seem to be active Wikimedians"], those being [[sock puppet]] votes of [[Jimbo Wales]]:  his employees at that corporation.
*no [[independent board]] free of influence from [[Bomis.com]] - although [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000371.html "two of the current trustees don't seem to be active Wikimedians"], those being [[sock puppet]] votes of [[Jimbo Wales]]:  his employees at that corporation.
Line 84: Line 64:


Attempts to rename this page "[[unsubstantiated claims]] of..." are bogus.  Most of what is '''alleged''' is actually rather easy to substantiate.  For instance all you have to do to see a [[GFDL violation]] is try to retrieve source text of a single article from a blocked IP.  It's obviously true that a search engine company like [[Bomis]] can use data on which articles are most popular - it's up to them to prove they AREN'T using it for advantage.  And you can find most of the rest of the stuff in the [[vile mailing list]] archives.  To demand "substantiation" for this kind of obvious observation is abusive.
Attempts to rename this page "[[unsubstantiated claims]] of..." are bogus.  Most of what is '''alleged''' is actually rather easy to substantiate.  For instance all you have to do to see a [[GFDL violation]] is try to retrieve source text of a single article from a blocked IP.  It's obviously true that a search engine company like [[Bomis]] can use data on which articles are most popular - it's up to them to prove they AREN'T using it for advantage.  And you can find most of the rest of the stuff in the [[vile mailing list]] archives.  To demand "substantiation" for this kind of obvious observation is abusive.
------------
''Moved issues with [[developer vigilantiism]] and others without official status:''
*appointment of [[Tim Starling]] as "developer liaison" presumably to ensure that any features to reinforce [[sysop power structure]] will be high priority, and those that would distribute more power to users would become low priority
:Participation here somewhat mollifies these concerns, however, Starling retains some [[IP range block]]s that are evidence of [[usurper]] status.
*[[Erik Moeller]] nearly appointed to some "special" status after losing an election, permitted to engage in frequent pro-Wikimedia [[libel]] activities, e.g. at [[Webby Awards]], and also engaging in [[libel chill]], e.g. describing [[trolls]] as engaged in '''libel against Wikimedia''' for simply telling truth.
:how can one libel an organization whose sole purpose seems to be libel?  Hmm.
-----------
Is it actually acceptable to simply remove [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Daniel Mayer]] publicly?  Will those subjected to [[libel]] by these people actually back off if they are publicly removed and Wales apologizes?  Or is Wales, himself, the ultimate problem, due to his history as a [[GodKing]] and so on?
[[Trolls]] are unlikely to all agree on this.  Perhaps the debate on a [[negotiated settlement between trolls and Wikimedia]] should be very public.
If [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] brokers such a deal, its prestige will rise, and it will effectively be more trusted than [[Wikimedia]] by defn.
----
Just for the record (in case our friend [[142.177.X.X]] - alias banned English Wikipedia user EntmootsofTrolls alias Mediator alias Enforcer etc. etc. - attempts to censor this information), here's the full text of Jimbo Wales' mailing list post of 1 May 2004:
[Wikipedia-l] Reponse to troll [[The Enforcer]]
Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com
Sat May 1 14:25:14 UTC 2004
One of our frequently banned users is making a variety of legal and
financial accusations that I wanted to respond to early and firmly
lest any of these things take root in any way shape or form as
reflective of reality in any way.
1.  First, the Wikimedia Foundation is currently in full compliance
and more with all legal requirements for filings, etc.  It is my
intention that we remain so, and that indeed, we are proactive about
doing whatever is necessary to go above and beyond what is required of
us in terms of organizational transparency, etc.
I am always eager to hear suggestions for improvement in this regard.
2.  Second, there are no plans of any kind to release a 'for-profit'
version of the Wikipedia, for the separate benefit of me or Bomis or
any other company that I own, control, work for, etc.  We *will* be
working to release Wikipedia on CD-ROM, in paper format, etc., but
these will be projects *of the foundation*, carried out with perfect
consistency with our nonprofit mission.
Such efforts will necessarily and properly involve the work of
for-profit publishers, but of course any contracts entered into will
be to the benefit of the Wikimedia Foundation.
3.  There are no current plans for salaries for anyone.  In the
future, I do intend that as we grow, we will become a large
organization patterned after the National Geographic Society, the
International Red Cross, and so on.  This will eventually necessitate
employees, etc.  But for now, any suggestion that I am personally
trying to get money from Wikipedia is beyond ludicrous.
It is commonly thought that I'm a wealthy person, but I'm not really.
I'm a very committed person who drives a 4 year old Hyundai and lives
in an ordinary middle-class American home in an ordinary neighborhood,
while spending far more in the last 5 years on my dream of a free
encyclopedia than I have on my own salary, none of which, of course,
is derived from Wikipedia in any way.
I do this because it matters to me.  There are lots of ways to spend
money in life, some frivolous, some meaningful.  To me, doing
something meaningful is the best reward.
4.  As of June 1, 2004, I am resigning as CEO of Bomis, and my partner
Tim Shell will take over that role.  This is primarily to reflect the
reality of the situation, which is that I spend virtually all my time
on Wikipedia and non-Bomis work.  But it is also in part to further
emphasize and underscore the fact that the two are unrelated.  Bomis's
ongoing provision of free hosting for the Wikimedia Foundation as a
gesture of appreciation of "giving back" to the free software
community whose software has helped us to do so much is not going to
change.  But that ongoing gift is the only relationship between Bomis
and Wikipedia, period.
5.  One troll has suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation needs to
disclose something about it's relationship to Bomis.  This is a
classic propaganda technique: to demand the disclosure of some shadowy
secrets, with ominous overtones, when there is actually nothing to
disclose.  I am happy to answer any questions that anyone has about
it, but there's not much to say.
While I was a futures and options trader, I founded Bomis partly as a
sideline hobby.  It was eventually successful enough for me to retire
from trading and do it full time.  The company rode through the
dot-com boom with good times and bad, and has always prospered enough
to provide me with a decent living.
I eventually became consumed with the passion to create a free and
freely licensed encyclopedia, and started to spend money on it.  In
the early days, I thought of it as a possible business venture like
RedHat.  Nupedia was an expensive failure, Wikipedia was a big
success.
But through that process, it became apparent that in order for
Wikipedia to achieve it's full potential it needed to be owned by a
non-profit organization.  I promised then to give it all away to the
non-profit organization, and I did.  I did so fully and completely and
with no regrets.  My reward will be a Nobel Peace Prize, ha ha.
Why has Bomis funded Wikipedia?  Because my partners in Bomis shared
my vision and let me do it.  Bomis had servers, technical employees,
etc., and was the original owner of Nupedia/Wikipedia.  The transition
was natural and spontaneous, and that's where things are today.
6.  I have said before that although there are no plans for it at the
current time, and no need for it, it would please me greatly to have
the Wikimedia Foundation grow into a large enough organization that it
would be sensible for me to accept a salary for running it.  If and
when that time comes, of course my compensation will be decided
according to the standard practices for charitable organizations, i.e.
through a vote of the other members of the Board of Directors, and in
accordance with the advice of an independent outside compensation
agency.
In short, if anyone has *any* questions or concerns about legal or
financial matters, I ask you to please write to me privately and
express those concerns openly and honestly, so that I can resolve
anything of this sort to everyone's satisfaction.  If, after you've
talked with me privately, you find that you have any remaining issues
that you don't feel I've addressed, then by all means I encourage you
to go public with your complaints.
That's my biggest problem, really, with what this troll is doing.
He's issuing a lot of lies (anonymously of course) and insinuations,
attempting to make a public stink, rather than honestly and simply
raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner.  I don't actually
fear any actual legal action, because in order to file a legal action,
he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would
then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them
from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a
libel claim against him.
Anyhow, really, I wanted to say all this because I want you you all to
know my keen interest in openness, transparency, fairness, etc.  I
want to do whatever I need to do to make sure that the Wikimedia
Foundation is looked to as a shining example of how a nonprofit should
be run, with tight attention paid to expenses, good stewardship of
donor money, etc.
--Jimbo
::"honestly and simply raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner" is actually not possible since Wales has a policy of [[outing]] those who offer any criticism, and actually attaching bogus labels to their names like for instance "criminal" or "liar". 
:::This maybe so but most of us are accustomed to dealing with people who reveal their identity when raising concerns, like me. People who remain anonymous aren't as convincing as those who are exposing themselves by being '''[[body|some body]]'''. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
::Besides no one needs to discuss the [[GFDL]] with Wales, or ask his interpretation of it - he is not a lawyer and is not qualified to say what is reasonable interpretation, and with a pet board, he is certainly not committed to actually asking [[independent board]] opinions of any matter - so the upside of talking to him is zero, the downside considerable, and the [[trolls]] are doing the right thing to just continue to ignore him as much as they can and make note of all his legal errors for later eradication of [[Wikimedia]] in court. 
:::Actually if you think that Wikimedia is in violation of [[GFDL]] you should speak to them about it, not just try to intimidate with assumably false threats of [[Class action suit]], [[Suing for funding]] and other crap that really really is not the consumerium way of trying to make things better. I mean that I understand that the lawyers in the US profit the most from the silly legistlation that allows all sorts of anti-common-sense-cases to actually go to court or seem likely enough to go to court that it affects people's behaviour --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
::There is no reason in the world to have any conversation with this guy, and still less given this:
:::I actually sorta enjoy debating with him about economic systems and such. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
::"...to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him. "
::[[libel chill]] of the plainest sort, and a clear message:  'complain to me or any authority directly, and you can expect court orders issued against you once I have your name on paper'
::the above says all it needs to say, and proves autocratic [[GodKing]] behaviour and total contempt for [[open content]] or its quality or completeness
:::[[Libel chill]] alright, but one interesting point that escaped you is that Jimbo refers to "ban '''them'''", but "file a libel claim against '''him'''" This might indicate that he has some understanding for the [[trollist]] ideology and usefullness of [[trolling]]. Not that I claim that as a fact. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)~
Jukeboksi
Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842

edits

Retrieved from "https://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/4949...45162"
We use only those cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.
More information