The fall out from The Register article continues to cause joy for the ex followers of Jossi Fresco’s master – but does this exchange amongst the exs go too far into Illuminatus land to be credible ? http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/cgi-bin/any...334&v=2&gV=0&p=

I think that the test for a conflict of interest should be whether there is some extraneous factor that binds the person's conscience or expression.

Which is a proposition that is easily understandable and acceptable in most human society. But Wikipedia is not 'most human society'; it is its own world with its own rules, and those rules have been developed via a process of 'corporate gaming' - an evolutionary process based on which players can contribute the most time and construct the most personally advantageous alliances. In that sense the whole thing is best seen as an online Role Playing Game.
Although offensive to anyone with a sense of integrity about what the role of an 'Encyclopedia' should be, the fun and games employed by 'conflicted' editors and admins over individual articles pales into insignificance when the scale of COI on the Wikipedia horizon is considered.
The whole commercial Wikia enterprise, the lack of clear separation from Wikimedia (which 'owns' Wikipedia) and the investment of major internet players like Amazon brings the prospect of a whole raft of COIs afflicting Wikimedia from top to bottom.
The Register article was entertaining for us, but for Wikipedia the problem is not Jossi Fresco or his master, nor the lack of a sane policy on COI for editors and admins; the problem for Wikimedia is that The Register has started to cut into the the impossible contradictions of Wikimedia that allow administrators like Jossi to prosper. And Jim Wales made his position clear, sneering at The Register article and praising Jossi; in effect announcing that 'the game is real' it's the world that's at fault. You can't fight that logic - not when Amazon are backing it with $10million.

You can't fight that logic - not when Amazon are backing it (wikipedia)with $10million.

Of course we may never know, so this is just pure speculation on my part. However I do have to wonder if there is any connection with Amazon's investment in Wikipedia, Wikipedia's apparent reluctance to censure Jossi for his obvious COI and his POV pushing together with the fact that a premie is on the Amazon board of directors.

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/cgi-bin/any...535&v=2&gV=0&p=

One of the directors of Amazon is a premie, and instructs the staff there to find reasons to delete ex-premie reviews of Rawat's work. I won't name this person as although I am not afraid of a lawsuit from Rawat, I would want several affidavits from staff this person has instructed before I risk being sued by this person.

Please name Amazon's follower of Prem Rawat, and then we can consider the collateral damage. Names are more useful than just vague speculation.

Similar to how once we learned who Michael E. Davis was, we could view his management practices through the prism of how he tried to hide $800,000 from someone he owed it to, drawing even a contempt charge from a court of law.

Whaaaat?

That sounds crazy. What's the evidence on that?

You guys really need to compile this stuff into a website or something, in case it's true that there is some kind of grand conspiracy that I'm not seeing because I haven't really dug through all of the threads on this forum.

zen, you're right. the sorts of things that are exposed (with WP:RS even!) and then forgotten about as they roll off the WR Index and back to the archives, should be wikified somehow. Off-WP. On-WR.

It's frustrating explaining the same ol' story o'er-n-o'er, as many here were already wikitired when i showed up.

i didn't know about the Ptmccain incident (no, not a JFK profile in courage, a Lutheran minister!) until just the other day, for example. Premalot escaped me for weeks.

A Wikipedia Babylon of sorts. With only reliable sources. ED is a vile turd, and Wikitruth is a poserfest from wikiinternals trying to get some street cred.

Kohser, Brandt, Bagley, and the W-R Elders have exposed dozens of Wikiscandals that get lost in the shuffle.

Wake up, Zenwhat. I'm also doubting the Amazon / Prem Rawat connection, but if you're questioning the history of Michael E. Davis and how he tried to hide $800,000 from Brian Dowling, here are a few linky-dinky-doos for you:

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County:
"...on November 3, 2003, because Davis did not appear in response to the citation served upon attorney Landis, the circuit court, on Dowling's motion, entered an order of contempt against Davis, as well as a bench warrant for his arrest..."

Detailed information about the appeal:
"We find Piper Rudnick's argument regarding the ownership of th(e) retainer funds to be disingenuous. In response to Dowling's initial citation to discover assets, Piper Rudnick answered that it was not holding any money belonging to Davis. Piper Rudnick had, as evidenced by the wire transfer from North Shore Bank, accepted money from Davis and Manor LLC that was subsequently used to purchase Davis's home in Florida."

Illinois State Supreme Court does absolve Davis of the contempt charge, but still shows that he and his lawyers were negligent in not more clearly identifying the $100,000 (of the $800,000+ that he owed) as an advance payment retainer. Justice Freeman did dissent:
"I must part company with the majority, however, with respect to the analysis and holding set forth in part III of its opinion. Specifically, I do not agree with the majority’s holding that the $100,000 paid by Davis and Seibel to Piper in this case was an “advance payment retainer.” It is my belief that the appropriate disposition of this appeal is to remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings in which both parties, Dowling and Piper (and its clients Davis and Seibel), can present evidence with respect to the proper characterization of the fee retainer and the acknowledged ambiguities contained within that document."

++++

I would encourage anyone who takes the time to read the Circuit Court case, the Appelate Court case that upheld the Circuit Court case, and the State Supreme Court case that overturned a portion of the Circuit and Appelate cases, to be mindful that the Supreme Court case overturned only the portion that discussed the availability to Dowling of the $100,000 that Davis gave (ambiguously) to his law firm and the $50,000 that Davis' second wife gave to the firm. That still means that Dowling was entitled to (and did recapture in as many ways were at his legal disposal, as far as I can interpret) the $650,000 or so that could be obtained from retirement funds, insurance policies, and real estate holdings of Davis'.

That's the guy who was Treasurer and Board member of Wikimedia, and of course, was Jimbo's partner at Chicago Options Associates, which of course carried over to Bomis and to Wikia. Jimbo is joined to Michael E. Davis like a Siamese twin.

Do your own research, Zenwhat. Then come back to us and "explain" how these ugly facts don't point to a conspiracy theory. We already know that. We just want people to know the shady characters they're entrusting their WMF donations to.

Greg

See the IL Supreme Court in 2007, and IL Ct. of Appeals in 2006.

One, is there some reason you are giving links to court case summaries that I already conveniently linked to above, in my own post?

Greg

Whoa … above is just a copy of an exchange from a forum, I’ve not got the details re: the Amazon insider and besides the ‘source’ says - "I would want several affidavits from staff this person has instructed before I risk being sued by this person."

I posted this stuff here because while the idea that, some Gordon Gekko with a guru complex has given Jimbo the word to give Jossi a soft ride, looks pretty much ‘out there’, the thing is it could be true, which is the kicker for Wikimedia.

What if one of Wikia’s backers does have a ‘special interest’, could be political, religious or straight commercial ? If Wikia is not separate from Wikimedia and if there’s already enough to show that Jimbo and his cronies are prepared to play fast and loose with Wikipedia’s rules then why shouldn’t companies like Amazon expect Wikipedia to comply with their Corporate interests, or the interests of directors or major share holders ? Especially if those same companies have a track record of editing their own open pages to suit sectional interests.

AF