[Foundation-l] pt:wiki policies
dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Sun Jun 7 00:51:48 UTC 2009
The key phrase here is basic policy applicable here is
"that anybody can edit"
Naturally, we can & do interpret it as meaning anybody who is willing
to cooperate with the rules and customs of the site. We also by
necessity must interpret it as anyone is able to have access to the
Regardless of the possible lack of legal obligations in present law
to accommodate medical conditions (and what country's law would apply
here?) -- I think we are morally obliged to, to the extent we can do
so without inordinate difficulty. The moral obligation is based on the
likelihood that we would want accommodations made for ourselves if we
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Happy-melon<happy-melon at live.com> wrote:
> The Wikimedia wikis are, ultimately, private websites, owned and operated by
> the Foundation. That the software they run happens to allow millions of
> users the ability to make changes to said site is ultimately just fortunate
> coincidence: the ability to edit Wikimedia wikis is a privilege, not a
> right, and one that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. with
> the usual IANAL disclaimer, legal non-discrimination mandates have no force
> here. If the issue were a Wikimedia *employee* being fired or blocked with
> the additional factor of said disability, the situation would be very
> different. That is not the case. In this context, we are guided only by
> our own ethics, and the values and goals of the project.
> "Nathan" <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7e948df10906051150h79d82524ha325aeb59ae9f2ed at mail.gmail.com...
>> Virgilio, you simply have not provided or described sufficient evidence to
>> back up the conclusion that the people who "run" pt.wp are have severe
>> emotional problems. Such accusations serve only to call your own integrity
>> into question, which I'm sure you wish to avoid.
>> It should be noted that most disability access laws refer to the right of
>> access to certain classes of goods and services and employment. Editing
>> Wikipedia would not seem to fall into any of the typically covered
>> categories, even were it under the jurisdiction of such laws. While I'm
>> an expert on the subject, I'm not aware of any laws that even require
>> to the Internet, let alone resources or activities accessed through it. So
>> the question of law is really separate; if you want to make a case about
>> access, it needs to be done on other grounds.
>> In the last discussion it was said by many that the primary role of
>> is the contribution and improvement of free content, and the privilege of
>> editing access is provided for that purpose. If we can help people with
>> certain disabilities be productive as editors, we should. If a disabled
>> editor, as any editor, becomes disruptive and impedes the goal of the
>> project (and assistance fails to solve the problem) then that person
>> be blocked.
>> My suggestion is that if you have a specific problem you'd like addressed,
>> bring that specific problem to the front. The way you've written your
>> it seems like you are trying to elicit statements that you can bring back
>> pt.wp and use in a dispute - all without telling us what the actual
>> is. That doesn't really fly here.
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l