[Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit : > we have no > "rights" to participate in Wikipedia. Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Yes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECH Obviously you have your normal legal rights (i.e. if someone does something illegal, then it is a courts matter). But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no righ

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit : >> we have no >> "rights" to participate in Wikipedia. > Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate > decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia? Anyone who is willing and able to edit constructively and more or less fol

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even > under > spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. > > Tom Community consensus will not permit that. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

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 w

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Thank you for your answer. I discovered that Wikipedia was not a bureaucracy[1] in the link you gave, that's encouraging. :) [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy Le 22/05/2011 12:23, Thomas Morton a écrit : > Yes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> 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 me

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

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 poi

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> 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. Tha

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> 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 > websit

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:31:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: > 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 publ

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:31:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: > > >> 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 guaran

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 18:44, wrote: > My point Fred, is there is no such animal.  So calling something a "private > website" is redundant, since all websites are private, there are no public > websites.  Certainly there are websites owned by governments, but they are > not public in the sense

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Yes it is. "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so." "As a private website, Wikipedia has the lega

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

What is called "community consensus" WILL permit you to be banned from any project or mailing list. Even if there is no "community consensus," anyone with the right buttons can do it without any need to justify, explain or write anything that remotely resembles something objective. Furthermore

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Oh dear. This just lost a lot of respect (whatever respect is remaining). So if someone (anyone?) can cause another person problems, they will? I must remember that as the default expectation of society, or Wikipedia communities at least. Documented as being that extreme by reliable sources no les

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Oh my! That's news for you? Let's see. Just a sample from firsthand experiences. 1) From Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Updated_request_for_assistance "The work on Meta was being done in an orderly manner until the disruption provoked and caused by those same people

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> > "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 > > Could some "consensus" be reached on this matter? > > 6) Fred Bauder might also be willing to fill you > wi

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Only a info: V.A.P. Machado was not banned from pt.wiki because "people does not like him". He was at frist banned from edit project and talk pages[1] due a ArbCom decision[2], but that could be revise each year[2]. Instead of change his behaivor he created a meat/sock puppet[3] and, since the Arb

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

I'm sorry for not being as brilliant as you are, but I have read my message over and over and can't find any "always" there. I haven't made any mention of the number of active editors. I don't know what you mean when you say that "obviously there are some cases where we can see things went bad

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

Thank you guys. I knew you wouldn't let me down. You outdid yourselves. On this illustrious mailing list where from «you know who» all the way to the neighborhood young kid posts, I made an apparent innocuous statement that included: "if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can t

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

I'm not sure any of us had the stated intention of helping you. What, exactly, were we expected to be helping you with? 2011/5/26 Virgilio A. P. Machado : > Thank you guys. I knew you wouldn't let me down. > You outdid yourselves. On this illustrious > mailing list where from «you know who» all th

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

You appear to have a different definition of "kind or nice word" than I'm used to. The words have been posted to help you. That is both kind (because it helps) and nice (because it was volunteered, taking up time from my life, for your potential benefit alone). I cannot control if you find them h

Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate

> I'm not sure any of us had the stated intention of helping you. What, > exactly, were we expected to be helping you with? I think the message is a head's up that there might be problems on some Wikimedia projects, and that the pollyannish attitude that everything will work out if one is patient