Difference between revisions of "File talk:Wikipedia scandals.jpg"

Revision as of 02:26, October 11, 2007

Did anyone look at where this graph comes from? The link is:

http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2007

This graph appears to be intentionally missleading. It shows only a small portion of the donation history, and on a DAILY BASIS none the less. What the graph fails to point out is that donations (averaged out for the month) from March almost DOUBLED from those of February. And sure, they went back down again, then bounced back up again... but that is how fundraising works... up and down. (Interesting to note, that the day after this graph ends, the donations for the very next day, March 20, were $102,078.64.) Correlation does not always imply causality. This is irresponsible journalism in my oppinion. Jason 16:55, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

That was a back-dated donation in the middle of March or April. WP cooked the books. That's another unreported scandal. Rob Smith 17:00, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

If it is unreported, how reliable is it? Do you have acess to WP insider information? If so then fine. If not I think it shouldn't be reported. It's fine to say it's "alleged", but that is different. Jason 17:17, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

The donation, I have on condition of anonymity, was $100,000. If you subtract $100,000 from the donations of March and April reported on the link above, you find this chart is remarkably accurate. Why a $100,000 donation was backdated to coincide with the decline in donations after the Essjay scandal was publicized, is a question for others to answer. Rob Smith 17:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

...one would think that Stephen J. Luczo (Chairman of the Board of Seagate Technology) or the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund would complain about Wikipedia arbitrarily backdating their $100k donation...

Oh, and "on condition of anonymity" and "true and verifiable" don't really mix well, don't they? Especially with bold claims like that. --Jenkins 18:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

It's been verified by a reputable source. Stephen J. Luczo & Seagate Technology is something we'll have to look into. Rob Smith 18:33, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, the problem is that you say it's been verified; and you aren't a reliable source to build an encyclopedia on (...yet :P), especially when it comes to bold accusations (and I'd say that backdating $100k donations is as bold as they get) involving the Foundation and that Luczo fellow there. --Jenkins 20:05, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

<-- Who says its an accussation? Who says WikiMedia's website is a "reliable source"? My Lord, you've opened a can of worms that is going nowhere. (Wikipedia, incidently, by it's Atribution policy defines itself, by name, as not a reliable source). Rob Smith 20:16, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Since it's the second time I notice this typo: "Accusation" has one "s" only.

And I don't know what you'd call it, but I'd call "That was a back-dated donation in the middle of March or April. WP cooked the books. That's another unreported scandal." an accusation.

Yes, Wikipedia's own disclaimer actually says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" on the disclaimer page. Incidentally, this "trustworthy encyclopedia" also says "CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" on its disclaimer page. I don't see what this has to do with WikiMedia, though. Other than doubting by association (I feel vaguely reminded of Clinton and Gay Bomb) again. Oh, and somehow you made two slips: One implied slip from WikiMedia to Wikipedia, and one from "How reliable are you and your anonymous source" to "How reliable is the source this entire graph is based on?"

If you truly claim that MediaWiki is not a reliable source (and by openly questioning the reliability and by dishing out the accusation of WP/WM tampering the books, you do just that), then the image should be deleted because it's based on likely unreliable data, which was in turn "adjusted" per the claims of an unknown source (the 100k donation is officially dated March 19 - the last data point of the graph). Incidentally, if we stick to the "data is reliable" claim, the graph is fradulent (because the last data point is wrong) and thus should be deleted, too.

I see it this way:

• You implicitly claim the data is reliable when you try to prove that the "scandals" were the cause of the fluctuations
• You implicitly and explicitly claim the data is unreliable when people point out that the graph is either wrong or misleading
• You claim that you or your anonymous source established that the data was made reliable by singling out where tampering happened.

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this bending and twisting. Bold claims are replaced by even bolder ones, and reality warps around your every post. You have fun smearing Wikipedia. I did my duty as an editor by pointing out the extremely shaky ground this all is built on. It's up to a sysop to make a decision. I'm out of this discussion. --Jenkins 20:57, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually I was referring to WP:Reliable sources/Examples/Are wikis reliable sources?, which reads, "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." But the author of this same language appears to have an appendage in the wringer at the moment [1] over precisely the same conduct, i.e. she wrote the policy, at first refused to enforce it so as to protect an unreputable source, and when forced to enforce the very policy she authored, took a reprisal action against the editor who brought the disparity to her attention.

And that is not all; the Essjay controversy was born out efforts to coverup this duplicity.

So when we have evidence WP will begin abiding by its own policies, we may be in a position to cut it some slack & give it the benefit of the doubt. Rob Smith 21:52, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

In the end, you're still making a grand claim without providing any supporting evidence. If I told you that Conservapedia was funneling funds, and I heard it from someone who wanted to remain anonymous, would you believe me? If I made a misleading graph about it, would you consider it gossip and deceit?ConserveATory 22:25, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm starting to get confused now! All I want to do is point out two things, then I think I am done:

1. According to the source page, the amount recieved on March 19th was $764. This graph shows the number going below $500. (??) The next day, (even if you take out the $100,000 that came from "cooking the books") there is still over $2,000 from that day alone. My only point is that this graph seems inacruate to me based on what I am seeing at the source page, and if the source page is compromised then all the more we should question this graph. It is also too small a window to show any kind of meaningful trend in donation reciepts.
2. About all this verifing of information... as an encyclopedia, if we want people to take us seriously, we should cite reliable sources. Even on Wikipedia, they require this, and if a page does not cite sources, it will eventually be tagged. They also have this policy that says Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, meaning it is not a collection of "unverifiable specualtion". If this policy is any different at Conservapedia, then Conservapedia has lost the moral high ground and doesn't have much room to criticize Wikipedia.

And just to clarify, I'm not defending Wikipedia. I just think Conservapedia should be cautious about what it puts out here. Jason 22:14, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Let's look at the foundation website link you provided. [2]

Month Total in USD [2007]

1 231,519.38

2 78,717.23

3 142,373.43

Let's subtract $100,000 single donation from the 3rd month

1 231,519.38

2 78,717.23

3 42,373.43

Is a trend discernible? Let's step back and look at a longer term trend.

2005 100.00

2006 1,531,890.98

2007 774,218.39

We don't need to make any conclusions. In fact, reporting the Foundations own stats here actually gives them credibility. Rob Smith 22:26, 10 October 2007 (EDT)