Of all the UKCC's declared responsibilities, this represents the sticking point.
QUOTE
[*]where the issue reported does not pose a serious risk to the charity, its assets or beneficiaries;
The point is: the way Wikimedia UK operates DOES represent a serious risk to the charity, its assets and its beneficiaries.
1. The database is wildly out of agreement with what is normally expected of an educational encyclopedia. I proved that with my subject-balance examination.
2. There are probably about 12,000 excessively negative and possibly defamatory BLPs, not to mention the 88,000 BLPs that appear to be edited to be favorable to their subjects. People (including some Wikipedia administrators) openly edit their own BLPs, and often get away with it. I've got examples.
3. There are a LOT of "bad articles". I've already noted some of them. My estimate: roughly 10-15% of Wikipedia's articles (the ones long enough to be "useful", leaving out stubs and very short ones) are incoherent or simply insane. Many of them never get fixed.
4. The English Wikipedia community is dying, thus most likely taking away any ability to repair the bad articles and the negative BLPs. The community, and certain WMF employees, appear to be actively working to cover up the fact that participation is declining. This, while Sue and Jimbo go around warning journalists that it's declining. Comical, and disturbing.
5. Commons contains thousands of photos that, I feel, many parents would prefer their children not have access to (the "porn" and the closeup photos of genitals are only a small part of this). All wide open and accessible to all.
6. As it exists now, the WMF does very little--except fundraise. The primary reason for its existence, the Wikipedia database, is allowed to drift around. Gnomes and crazies are using bots to keep editcounts cranked up, but making articles into hash in the process. Administrators and content creators are quitting in epic numbers--except for the vandalism patrollers and banhammers.
Didn't Hersfold's election to Arbcom give anyone the hint that Wikipedia is in real trouble? He's one of the worst, most hateful patrollers they have right now. He has no stake in fixing Wikipedia; he has a personal interest in keeping it broken, crazy and vandalized.
I could go on. But this ought to be enough to raise a red flag, at the UKCC and/or elsewhere.
(GBG, is someone
paying you to disrupt this thread?)
This post has been edited by EricBarbour: