Wikimedia: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(noting key examples, and problem personalities: Wales, Moeller, Beesley, all of whom have intimidated others with political and insider clique biases - you want these criticisms to go away, ditch 'em) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Many participants in the [[Wikipedia]] and other [[GFDL corpus]] projects have raised concerns with the people and processes employed by the "foundation". They claim that it has structural problems and that is unlikely to ever outgrow these. Most of the criticisms have to do with [[wiki management]] problems: | Many participants in the [[Wikipedia]] and other [[GFDL corpus]] projects have raised concerns with the people and processes employed by the "foundation". They claim that it has structural problems and that is unlikely to ever outgrow these. Most of the criticisms have to do with [[wiki management]] problems: | ||
* | *Numerous claims that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]]. | ||
invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language". | |||
*Numerous claims that Wikipedia's [[name space]] is [[EPOV]] and favours Wikipedia itself inherently, e.g. creating use of ISO language codes in [[mediawiki]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language". | |||
For example [[Wikipedia:fr:Commerce �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to the [[interwiki link standard]] name which is [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �quitable]]: | For example [[Wikipedia:fr:Commerce �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to the [[interwiki link standard]] name which is [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �quitable]]: | ||
| Line 73: | Line 74: | ||
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]]. Under this policy, sysops are guilty of ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders, to the bizarre extremes of assuming that the Wikipedia mailing list consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts, or citing [[echo chamber]] assertions in [[Wikipedia]] articles as if they were true. | *Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]]. Under this policy, sysops are guilty of ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders, to the bizarre extremes of assuming that the Wikipedia mailing list consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts, or citing [[echo chamber]] assertions in [[Wikipedia]] articles as if they were true. | ||
::Recently, on [[m:|Meta-Wikipedia]], Users [[Erik Moeller]] and | ::Recently, on [[m:|Meta-Wikipedia]], Users [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Auntie Angela|Angela Beesley]] agreed that "only the [[community point of view]]" should even be permitted on Meta, with every dissenter [[use real names|forced to reveal "their real name"]] to attach to positions that dissented. This of course would put these dissenters in positions of very extreme [[vulnerability]] and weakness. | ||
[[Auntie Angela|Angela Beesley]] agreed that "only the | |||
[[community point of view]]" should even be permitted on Meta, | ::Moeller even advocated openly on the [[Wikipedia IRC channel]] that Wikimedia should have thugs on call in every country to make sure this point of view was enforced by violence. This led to complaints about him [[w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales|which you can read here]]. More importantly, the idea that '''''systemic bias is something to be enforced, not balanced''''' has taken root, thanks to advocates of [[sysop vigilantiism]] - who were destroying and damaging essays presenting alternative views even in advance of discussion of this policy point. | ||
with every dissenter [[use real names|forced to reveal "their real name"]] | |||
to attach to positions that dissented. This of course would put these dissenters in | |||
positions of very extreme [[vulnerability]] and weakness. | |||
Moeller even advocated openly on the [[Wikipedia IRC channel]] that Wikimedia should have thugs on call in every country to make sure this point of view was enforced by violence. This led to complaints about him [[w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales|which you can read here]]. More importantly, the idea that '''''systemic bias is something to be enforced, not balanced''''' has taken root, thanks to advocates of [[sysop vigilantiism]] - who were destroying and damaging essays presenting alternative views even in advance of discussion of this policy point. | |||
*Allegedly planning (certainly discussing open whether) to modify its contributor agreement to make Wikimedia the contributor's copyright infringement agent. This would pose some potential threat to the open content status of Wikimedia projects, by letting Wikimedia use a legal bludgeon to shut down even legitimate | *Allegedly planning (certainly discussing open whether) to modify its contributor agreement to make Wikimedia the contributor's [[copyright infringement agent]]. This would pose some potential threat to the open content status of Wikimedia projects, by letting '''Wikimedia''' use a legal bludgeon to shut down even legitimate [[mirror]]s and full [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s on the basis of even minor inconsistency with the GFDL - in places where Wikimedia itself may be arguably inconsistent or in [[GFDL violation]]. At the moment it requires some degree of consensus before that could happen, since a fair number of contributors would have to sign up for any legal action. Eliminating that hurdle would significantly increase the potential for locking up the content. See [[w:Wikipedia:Submission Standards]] | ||
*[[Libel chill]] employed as a tactic to silence critics, including those who have raised simple legal issues re the [[GFDL]] and [[charitable status]], which any contributor or citizen has a right to do. | *[[Libel chill]] employed as a tactic to silence critics, including those who have raised simple legal issues re the [[GFDL]] and [[charitable status]], which any contributor or citizen has a right to do. | ||
*Other [[Wikimedia corruption]] charges, some of which involve benefits of running Wikipedia that accrue to the operators of a commercial search engine. ''See [[link transit]] for various attempts to resolve this issue.'' | *Other [[Wikimedia corruption]] charges, some of which involve benefits of running Wikipedia that accrue to the operators of a commercial search engine. ''See [[link transit]] for various attempts to resolve this issue.'' | ||