Talk:False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption

You and your friends censor and attack this material, making a mess of it, and then you expect detailed response with attribution that has already been provided? Why would anyone bother?

The right place to make these claims is probably in court or in a letter to the regulators, and that's the only place you have a right to see any documentation.

Until then any fool with the ability to google the Wikipedia mailing list can find this easily.

It is now clear that of the four contested claims, moved from alleged Wikimedia corruption which still has a long list of claims more difficult to contest or dispute, two of them evidence the "coverup" nature of the organization (the elections, the lack of open discussion of what to do about the China ban), while two more illustrate the operational incompetence of it (inability to handle link transit or page view data, and inability to fund itself or accept serious donations due to lack of an independent board and participation of untrustworthy garbage like Daniel Mayer as an officer).

There's nothing "false" or "unsubstantiated" about any of this, and saying it is just makes the article come from a Sysop Vandal point of view with the New Troll point of view only in counterpoint.

Basically if Angela Beesley, Jim Wales, Tim Starling, and so on, were not liars and were trustworthy and actually cared about the truth of statements (made in their encyclopedia or about it) then we would not even be having this discussion. It is because these people are a waste of skin that the issues arise, and because they are ignorant, self-certain, EPOV, and all that, that they cannot be trusted. Certainly not with such a monumental effect upon the google count which they reserve for their far right wing friends (who never seem to get banned while the Wikipedia Red Faction is harassed out of existence and people are afraid to admit they are Reds to avoid angering Wales the Ayn Rand fanatic).