From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com Date: 2006/02/17 Fri AM 11:50:17 EST To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind
If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether publishing "I am a fish" on your user page is allowed or not? Why doesn't my opinion carry as much weight as the next one? AFAIK there is no Wikipedia-rule against writing pedophile on your user page. I thought that was the whole reason for this email thread.
The Foundation owns Wikipedia.
Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
No. The U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from restricting ''free speech''. The courts have extended that to state and local governments. There is no protection of free speech on private property, such as the servers on which Wikipedia is hosted. Try going to a shopping mall and lecturing the shoppers in favor of a position that is not popular in your community.
On 17/02/06, dalbury@bellsouth.net dalbury@bellsouth.net wrote:
There is no protection of free speech on private property, such as the servers on which Wikipedia is hosted. Try going to a shopping mall and lecturing the shoppers in favor of a position that is not popular in your community.
The most effective analogy I've seen for "free speech does not apply to private property" is asking if newspaper editors should be required by law to print whatever articles anyone sends them...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 2/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The most effective analogy I've seen for "free speech does not apply to private property" is asking if newspaper editors should be required by law to print whatever articles anyone sends them...
This is right of course. I think the problem is that the free and open nature of Wikipedia has given people the feeling that they are somehow entitled to the freedom. You don't hear anyone complaining about the fact that they can't have userboxes on Britannica.
Ryan
On 2/22/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This is right of course. I think the problem is that the free and open nature of Wikipedia has given people the feeling that they are somehow entitled to the freedom. You don't hear anyone complaining about the fact that they can't have userboxes on Britannica.
Not until now anyway. BRB.
Steve