Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
That's an awful lot to proclaim without a supporting argument. I'm interested in details of why you think so.
Well, my PhD is on the emergence of Law and I am using wikimedia and wikipedia as demonstrations for my arguments :)
But you're right, I should write something on it !
A simpler response would be to cite the clause in the statute that says this. To me a fundamental principal of law is that anything which is not specifically forbidden is allowed.
Ec
Hoi, It may be a fundamental principal of law. However, I am uncomfortable with it as it leads to all kinds of weasely people do things and argue: "reading the law I can interpretet it in such a way so it should be allowed" while it is totally against what the law is about. It works both ways as this is also used to prevent people from doing things because some people are great in bending the rules.
When it comes to our projects, it must be clear that they have their rules, they invoke an image of what they are to mean. When the language is deemed to be unclear and that is used as an excuse to do what is manifestly against the spirit of our projects, I would not excuse this. The guiding principle of what we do is, we write an encyclopedia, a dictionary, news, training material whatever that is free NPOV and with we do this with respect for our fellow editors. We are not a debating club. We have people active as member of our community in practically all legal entities of this world and therefore there is not only one law and one law's principles that we have to take into account.
Our rules are different from project to project, it is the spirit of the Wikimedia Foundation that binds us all. It must be clear, that rules within a project that are against the spirit of the WMF are not acceptable, neither are practices that violate what the WMF stands for.
Thanks, Sorry for my rant, GerardM