WMF's latest scam "report" - Participatory grantmaking

[Poetlister]

He's thinking. Lovingly.

No, you've got that wrong. He thinks thoughtfully. He interacts with young ladies with BLP problems lovingly.

[HRIP7]

Another look at this matter in this week's Signpost, in an op-ed by Gamaliel.

[thekohser]

Another look at this matter in this week's Signpost, in an op-ed by Gamaliel.

Wow, I see how wrong I was, to have built up a "conspiracy theory" about the WMF's circular PR methods, and (for shame!) to have introduced criticism of the Wikimedia Foundation on such a scurrilous site as Wikipediocracy. I'm a terrible person. Thank you for setting me straight, "Gamaliel", whoever you are.

"Coretheapple" is also a big fan of Gamaliel, so I am doubly ashamed.

[DanMurphy]

It is not surprising that such a theory emerged from Wikipediocracy, where users spend years nursing and reinforcing each other's contradictory grudges against Wikipedia.

What a smug, ignorant asshat "Gamaliel" is. Nice trick suggesting everyone here is in agreement about everything, though, and then devoting the vast majority of his writing bashing Kohs. That's never been tried by a Wikipedia smear-merchant before!

[Lukeno94]

It is not surprising that such a theory emerged from Wikipediocracy, where users spend years nursing and reinforcing each other's contradictory grudges against Wikipedia.

What a smug, ignorant asshat "Gamaliel" is. Nice trick suggesting everyone here is in agreement about everything, though, and then devoting the vast majority of his writing bashing Kohs. That's never been tried by a Wikipedia smear-merchant before!

"It is not surprising that such a theory emerged from Gamaliel, a user who spends years nursing and reinforcing his own contradictory grudges against sane members of the human race"

Does that sound better ?

[EricBarbour]

Another look at this matter in this week's Signpost, in an op-ed by Gamaliel.

Note that the fat little chode carefully avoids linking directly to the blog posts involved. Rob is just as rotten and dishonest as ever.

[thekohser]

I'd like to know what happened to the Comments on that Signpost editorial. I assure you, this is not what the edit history looked like early on March 5. Things were made to disappear -- is there a record of oversight on that page?

[thekohser]

I'd like to know what happened to the Comments on that Signpost editorial. I assure you, this is not what the edit history looked like early on March 5. Things were made to disappear -- is there a record of oversight on that page?

Anyone know? I am positive that comments are missing from that page, but there's no visible sign of Oversight? Was it a developer action?

[thekohser]

I'd like to know what happened to the Comments on that Signpost editorial. I assure you, this is not what the edit history looked like early on March 5. Things were made to disappear -- is there a record of oversight on that page?

Anyone know? I am positive that comments are missing from that page, but there's no visible sign of Oversight? Was it a developer action?

Another case of old age setting in. I apologize -- nothing to my knowledge has been removed from the commentary, after all. I was confusing myself with a comment that was left on this Signpost article, which is also still there.

[Randy from Boise]

I'd like to know what happened to the Comments on that Signpost editorial. I assure you, this is not what the edit history looked like early on March 5. Things were made to disappear -- is there a record of oversight on that page?

Anyone know? I am positive that comments are missing from that page, but there's no visible sign of Oversight? Was it a developer action?

Another case of old age setting in. I apologize -- nothing to my knowledge has been removed from the commentary, after all. I was confusing myself with a comment that was left on this Signpost article, which is also still there.

Welcome to the club, Greg.

The bad news: it only gets worse.

RfB

[Triptych]

I'd like to know what happened to the Comments on that Signpost editorial. I assure you, this is not what the edit history looked like early on March 5. Things were made to disappear -- is there a record of oversight on that page?

Anyone know? I am positive that comments are missing from that page, but there's no visible sign of Oversight? Was it a developer action?

Another case of old age setting in. I apologize -- nothing to my knowledge has been removed from the commentary, after all. I was confusing myself with a comment that was left on this Signpost article, which is also still there.

Welcome to the club, Greg.

The bad news: it only gets worse.

Dunno how serious you guys are but a mistake like that doesn't require much forgetfulness. A twenty-year-old could make it. Kohser might (or not) be faulted that he reacted suspiciously too quickly and before doublechecking everything.

[thekohser]

I guess 2.5 years is long enough to revive this wonderfully-processed thread. Some of our greatest participants were involved, and it even resulted in a blog post and a Wikipedia article's deletion.

You'd think with that embarrassment, the Wikimedia Foundation would just let it drop. But, no. Even the Lafayette Practice -- the very caretakers of the neologism "participatory grantmaking" -- has known enough to not even mention the phrase publicly on its website, since February 2016.

Not taking the cue from their hired management consultants at Lafayette, the WMF actually came back for more, earlier this year. Katy Love probably figured she could deflect the guilt if she could round up another supporter of "participatory grantmaking", and so the fop of RSF Social Finance was conjured up to co-sign the scam (or, as they say, "a larger scale tool") for another go-round.

I'm beginning to see why some dog owners feel the need to "hold the dog's nose in it" when the canine lays a turd in the house.