Jump to content

Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

3,861 bytes added ,  4 September 2004
leaving only concerns with officers visible, moving developer issues to Talk:, noting attempt to hide allegations without answering them, noting link transit progress
No edit summary
(leaving only concerns with officers visible, moving developer issues to Talk:, noting attempt to hide allegations without answering them, noting link transit progress)
Line 1: Line 1:
Slander removed.
[[Wikipedia]] is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]].  It was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] in 2003.  Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to contributors and users.  Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes:
 
=== structural corruption ===
 
*many [[GFDL violation]]s notably re [[attribution]] and access to source text and all improvements.  ''See [[text liberation]] for more on this issue
*no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board";  no [[independent board]] members not affiliated with operations
*'''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;  several attempts to revert these claims without answering to them, proving there is no adequate response
*[[technological escalation]] against [[Recyclopedia]] and threatened against [[Wikinfo]] - attempted coverup with extremely selective event reporting in [[Wikipedia]], false claims in article nominally about Recyclopedia but seeming to serve only to spread the story that did not include [[denial of service attack]]s with [[vandalbot]]s
*users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count"
*solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines - may violate US federal law
*[[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vandalism]] most notably by [[Auntie Angela]] and [[Hephaestos]]
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vigilantiism]] and more serious [[developer vigilantiism]], notably by Tim Starling and Erik Moeller
*[[ad hominem delete]] without process, recently spread to [[Meta-Wikipedia]]
*[[ad hominem revert]] allowed to stand
*U.S. and U.K. centric editorial policy, set by people who speak only English
*total censorship of [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] - not even history now visible due to intimidation of this group
*attempted [[libel chill]] by labelling contents of this page "[[slander]]".
 
=== recently dealt with ===
 
*withholding of information regarding [[link transit]] at [[Wikipedia]] which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a [[search engine]] like [[Bomis]];  several attempts to raise this issue have been suppressed;  finally in September 2004 some code emerged to start to deal with it.
 
=== individual corruption by officers ===
 
*Wales intimidating [[English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]] for being "too [[anti-American]]"
*[[libel chill]] by Wales, attempting to silence critics of his decisions and appointments, or even just those who point out [[GFDL violation]]s by Wikimedia, e.g. accusing people who say [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] as being guilty of '''libel against Wikimedia''' on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]]
*[[Daniel Mayer]] was appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer on July 4, 2004;  this individual is hardly credible as a reporter of facts or a guardian of any principles, given his long standing participation in [[echo chamber]] and [[libel pit]] activities;  it strongly detracts from credibility of [[Wikimedia]] and [[Wikipedia]] when such a person is in charge of the books
 
''For issues with developers and others without official status, see [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]].''
Anonymous user
We use only those cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.