In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, morton.thomas@googlemail.com writes:
But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
You make the word "private" have no meaning. What would be a "public" website in that case?
In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, morton.thomas@googlemail.com writes:
But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
You make the word "private" have no meaning. What would be a "public" website in that case?
Legally, Wikipedia is private property belonging to a nonprofit corporation. If the United States government, or some other government, owned it and regulated it in such a way as to guarantee public access it would be a public website.
As it is the community does regulate it in that way.
Fred
As it is the community does regulate it in that way.
No. People are banned or restricted all the time. The point of WP:FREESPEECH is to point out that those bannings can't be contested under the premise that the banned party has a right to edit.
Yes, the community does regulate it this way. That is by convention and common sense, in keeping with the ideals. But if the community agreed tomorrow, by consensus, to ban me then that is it.
And that... was the point in the context of the discussion :)
Tom
On 22 May 2011 17:31, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, morton.thomas@googlemail.com writes:
But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
You make the word "private" have no meaning. What would be a "public" website in that case?
Legally, Wikipedia is private property belonging to a nonprofit corporation. If the United States government, or some other government, owned it and regulated it in such a way as to guarantee public access it would be a public website.
As it is the community does regulate it in that way.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm note sure I understand... Wikipedia is privately owned by the foundation. There is no real definition of "public website", but I suppose a government website would be publicly owned (although that raises an interesting question as to your rights to access/contribute to such a website).
The point is; you cannot say "stopping me from editing Wikipedia is a violation of my right to free speech" because the WMF (and the editor community, due to their relative control of the eco-system) only grants you the privilege of editing the site, which can be rescinded at any time, for any reason.
As the page says... that is not intended to sound like being a jerk. It is just a practical response to those claiming the misconception they have a right to soapbox on the site.
@Fred:
Community consensus will not permit that.
I'm not sure I follow... isn't that a paradox? :)
Tom
On 22 May 2011 17:25, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, morton.thomas@googlemail.com writes:
But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
You make the word "private" have no meaning. What would be a "public" website in that case? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm note sure I understand... Wikipedia is privately owned by the foundation. There is no real definition of "public website", but I suppose a government website would be publicly owned (although that raises an interesting question as to your rights to access/contribute to such a website).
The point is; you cannot say "stopping me from editing Wikipedia is a violation of my right to free speech" because the WMF (and the editor community, due to their relative control of the eco-system) only grants you the privilege of editing the site, which can be rescinded at any time, for any reason.
As the page says... that is not intended to sound like being a jerk. It is just a practical response to those claiming the misconception they have a right to soapbox on the site.
@Fred:
Community consensus will not permit that.
I'm not sure I follow... isn't that a paradox? :)
Tom
Indeed. And should people editing in good faith be prevented from doing so Wikipedia would soon be toast.
That does not mean that there are not isolated cases of injustice. Such users need to patiently and persistently bring their situation to the attention of the community.
Fred
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org