> As it is the community does regulate it in that way.

No. People are banned or restricted all the time. The point of WP:FREESPEECH
is to point out that those bannings can't be contested under the premise
that the banned party has a right to edit.

Yes, the community does regulate it this way. That is by convention and
common sense, in keeping with the ideals. But if the community agreed
tomorrow, by consensus, to ban me then that is it.

And that... was the point in the context of the discussion :)

Tom

On 22 May 2011 17:31, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> 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?
>
> Legally, Wikipedia is private property belonging to a nonprofit
> corporation. If the United States government, or some other government,
> owned it and regulated it in such a way as to guarantee public access it
> would be a public website.
>
> As it is the community does regulate it in that way.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to