Looks like this needs to be reviewed. A conclusion should be made based
upon
WP policy rather than the US constitution.
Mgm
On 1/31/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beiā¦
Mediator's result:
"Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed.
Wiki<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach>
e <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EA>Zach|
talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach>19:20;19:20, 26 January
2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this:
#1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about
whether
the photos and quotations in question were
violations of NPOV standards
(and
for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked
at
at
all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia is
not
bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof. Therefore,
the
"result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree with you, though I haven't reviewed the case yet.
--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia