> 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 the privilege of editing the site, which can be rescinded at any time, 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
Indeed. And should people editing in good faith be prevented from doing so Wikipedia would soon be toast. That does not mean that there are not isolated cases of injustice. Such users need to patiently and persistently bring their situation to the attention of the community. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
