On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like this needs to be reviewed. A conclusion should be made based upon WP policy rather than the US constitution.
Mgm
On 1/31/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit...
Mediator's result: "Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed. Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EAZach| talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this: #1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about
whether
the photos and quotations in question were violations of NPOV standards (and for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked
at
at all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia is not bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof. Therefore, the "result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree with you, though I haven't reviewed the case yet.