[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Casey Brown]

"fundamental issue" does not *necessarily* involve the wider foundation.  It
*is* a fundamental policy for the English Wikipedia, see <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:5>.  However, I agree with you that it might
be changed by the consensus of the community, but that is one of the things
we are not sure exist (consensus of the community for changing it).

On 9/18/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
>
> > Now, I'm not kidding...
> >
> > What are the major issues?
>
> Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages?
> The issues have been debated heavily there.
>
> The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the
> Wikipedia community...  Are we going to be a free and open community
> unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue
> including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads
> in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows?  Are we able to take in
> good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as
> well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that
> excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in
> order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of
> us?  Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free-
> spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid
> hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo
> topics for discussion?
>
> Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much
> hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in
> participating in and supporting Wikipedia.  Your "Salt the Earth"
> remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires
> to be.  Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site"
> without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright
> Kafkaesque.  And your statement that "the community may not override
> a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is
> absolutely and utterly wrongheaded.  NPA is definitely *not* a
> foundation issue; see
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
>
> NPA isn't there.  NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say
> contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
>
> Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law
> against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional
> principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the
> legislature or referendum; that's simply false.  NPA is a policy
> adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked,
> altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long
> as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
>
> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.