[Foundation-l] pt:wiki policies
happy-melon at live.com
Sun Jun 7 09:40:35 UTC 2009
Yes, that's definitely true. But our ultimate guiding principle is the
greater good of the project. "Anyone can edit" should apply to, as you say,
anyone who is prepared to work constructively with the project, regardless
of any disability (we take great pains, for instance, to make pages
*editable*, not just readable, by blind users). However, if a user is
unable to cause a net benefit to the project through their contributions,
for *whatever* reason, then our obligation then becomes one of minimising
any damage caused, often by blocking and banning. IIRC there have been past
incidents involving editors with mental illnesses; I can imagine a similar
problem resulting from an editor with Tourette's. If a contributor is
destructive to the project as a result of physical or mental impairment, our
actions shouldn't, IMO, be affected by that impairment (partly because it's
difficult or impossible to *verify* such a situation). Attempting to get
troublesome editors to accept mentorship, or other similar methods, is
*always* better for the project than an outright ban, at least initially;
the presence or absence of medical conditions doesn't change that either.
But Virgilio, it is perfectly possible, and reasonably common, for
communities to decide that the most efficient, and beneficial to the
project, way of reacting to certain editors' contributions, is to ask them
to exercise their right to leave. Banning is a viable action when a user is
consistently and irredeemably unconstructive. To us, *why* they are acting
in such a way is ultimately irrelevant.
"David Goodman" <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote
news:480eb3150906061751s1bb90d18o4a96b57bbd9a392d at mail.gmail.com...
> 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
> needed them.
> 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
>> the Foundation. That the software they run happens to allow millions of
>> users the ability to make changes to said site is ultimately just
>> 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
>> here. If the issue were a Wikimedia *employee* being fired or blocked
>> 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
>> news:7e948df10906051150h79d82524ha325aeb59ae9f2ed at mail.gmail.com...
>>> Virgilio, you simply have not provided or described sufficient evidence
>>> back up the conclusion that the people who "run" pt.wp are have severe
>>> emotional problems. Such accusations serve only to call your own
>>> into question, which I'm sure you wish to avoid.
>>> It should be noted that most disability access laws refer to the right
>>> 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.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
> 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