I'm note sure I understand... Wikipedia is privately owned by the foundation. There is no real definition of "public website", but I suppose a government website would be publicly owned (although that raises an interesting question as to your rights to access/contribute to such a website).
The point is; you cannot say "stopping me from editing Wikipedia is a violation of my right to free speech" because the WMF (and the editor community, due to their relative control of the eco-system) only grants you the privilege of editing the site, which can be rescinded at any time, for any reason. As the page says... that is not intended to sound like being a jerk. It is just a practical response to those claiming the misconception they have a right to soapbox on the site. @Fred: > Community consensus will not permit that. I'm not sure I follow... isn't that a paradox? :) Tom On 22 May 2011 17:25, <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > morton.tho...@googlemail.com writes: > > > > But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You > > have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website. > > > > > > You make the word "private" have no meaning. > What would be a "public" website in that case? > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
