Any encouragement to hurry along the demise of enemy projects is of course not to be an action of the Consumerium Governance Organization, nor known to them, but is the sacred duty of trolls to carry out by whatever means - i.e. you don't want to ask, and you don't want to know, and don't think about it. There's already too many hints in the article that might make Wikipedians think they can "deal with the problems" and extend their worthless lifespan...
It will be amusing to see if Wikipedians show up and try to refute any of these claims.
- They didn't, but, some formerly banned IP ranges can now retrieve source text, so if they've done that for banned range, they might well be in GFDL compliance for single articles,
- if not collections (if they do XML dumps next, they'll be probably in the clear technically, but, not true to GFDL spirit of course and probably violating some implied terms that contributors have every reason to expect, like not being lied about or outed in published material they can't edit, or actually having someone who cares about 'the encyclopedia' and not 'the community' do the edits). At least, one can retrieve from Simple. Haven't tested "saving" yet, nor any other language from the troll's fave range. Probably it was another user in that range that demanded the unblock, since they blocked 65,000 IPs just to not have to read the truth about them as written by us... lol...
- Yup, we pointed out some sysop vandalism, and, The_Anome blocked with the usual ad hominem excuse. So this just shows they are trying to continue their wrong policies.
- Amazingly, Simple English Wikipedia was never listed as one of the enemy projects here, my mistake. Well we'll see if they realize they are creating unequal power relationships by not defining social network, power network, etc., which are absolutely essential to teach non-native English speakers the lingo of dealing with the power structure... for now it's fine to consider them "neither essential nor enemy" and just basically ignore them.
"I'd like to distribute cheaply-printed paperback copies of Wikipedia to every school in every country in Africa, in English or French as the local circumstances dictate. (I'd prefer native tongues, of course, but en and fr are more likely to be ready and useful soon.)"
- This is the ultimate enemy project, as it would put bad ideas like w:GDP (notice, that article has no critical view), w:power structure being always and only w:hierarchy (as in Wikipedia itself, Empires, and tribes and organized crime gangs), and no proper coverage of issues like deforestation, into the minds of many children who might otherwise get a correct view of these things.
- GDP in itself is not bad, it's a good thing, but using it to measure things that should not be measured with such a gross meter is a bad idea. --Juxo 20:08, 12 Apr 2004 (EEST)
- No, it has never been used for its intended use, only abused. Read what its own creators say about it. They wish it had never been created.
This project will be opposed at every turn, by all the groups slandered (like moderate w:Islamists for instance who pursue w:Islam as a political movement peacefully, and do not practice the invented ideology w:Islamism which was created by Americans and Zionists and has nothing to do with the real beliefs of the majority of real Islamists).
- It would be better to bring Recyclopedia to these poor people, but of course, Wikimedia or its agents have deliberately attacked that project with vandalbots and denial of service attack, to prevent it from becoming a competitor.
- The vandalbot attacks were clearly the work of people who were already familiar with such bots, which Wikipedia only gives to its own sysops. The choice of specific vandalized articles intended to censor criticism of Wikimedia or language useful to describe its behaviour accurately. These attacks caused most of the bandwidth, which contributed to its exceeding bandwidth limits. So the statement as it stands is strictly true. Whether or not there were further attacks to load servers to cause that overload, that is unclear, but, that is not actually required to consider what happened to be a denial of service attack. No one will call a lawyer over this, because, it is provably true that it happened.
- "When the time comes, I'd like to put together a budget for that concept, and then go get funding for it, either from the general public, or from someone like Oprah Winfrey who has taken an interest in major projects of that kind. (Or possibly even governments, although as I have said, I have some real qualms about us using tax money.)"
- It will be relatively easy to discredit Wikimedia with such responsible and compassionate people. Its many GFDL violations are good enough to keep any major funder or donor away from it. Trolls will do this dirty work.
- How would Consumerium Governance Organization run a developing nation project that would be actually responsible and effective for these readers?
- Ever note that we still have no CGO because we would immediatelly start chewing legs viciously? --Juxo 20:23, 12 Apr 2004 (EEST)
- We can probably design a good CGO right now since we know how to not be Wikimedia, which is the most important thing.