Unsubstantiated claims of Wikimedia corruption: Difference between revisions

    From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
    (rm politics)
    (note about false claims on both "sides")
    Line 4: Line 4:
    *"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, the [[GodKing]] unilaterally "hereby authorize Andrew Lih to make a statement on our behalf, based on [[usual happy NPOV talk]]."  This was less than one day after the "election" of [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.
    *"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, the [[GodKing]] unilaterally "hereby authorize Andrew Lih to make a statement on our behalf, based on [[usual happy NPOV talk]]."  This was less than one day after the "election" of [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.
    *false claims added to [[Wikimedia]] article here, and true claims removed
    *false claims added to [[Wikimedia]] article here, and true claims removed
    ::Note that most false claims here have been made by [[142.177.X.X]] who seems to be on a personal vendetta on Wikipedia for banning him for persistent non-encyclopedic edits in the past
    *[[technological escalation]] against [[Recyclopedia]] and threatened against [[Wikinfo]]
    *[[technological escalation]] against [[Recyclopedia]] and threatened against [[Wikinfo]]
    *users not consulted when user environment changes
    *users not consulted when user environment changes

    Revision as of 21:34, 18 June 2004

    Evidence of Wikimedia corruption includes:

    • no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board"
    • "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, the GodKing unilaterally "hereby authorize Andrew Lih to make a statement on our behalf, based on usual happy NPOV talk." This was less than one day after the "election" of Wikimedia Board of Trustees who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.
    • false claims added to Wikimedia article here, and true claims removed
    Note that most false claims here have been made by 142.177.X.X who seems to be on a personal vendetta on Wikipedia for banning him for persistent non-encyclopedic edits in the past