Wikipedia talk:Free speech/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bull

Oh Bull! Fred Bauder 21:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't Understand

I don't understand the point of this page. It encourages people to leave Wikipedia and fork it! Something like that wouldn't be out of place on some anti-Wikipedia site, but what the hell does it do in Wikipedia namespace???  Grue  08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they may not be saying it in the most pleasant way, but it's all quite true. Blocking a disruptive user is sometimes said (by wikilawyers) to violate that user's right to free speech, and this is a succinct rebuttal. See also the (rather redundant but apparently wanted) Wikipedia:User prerogatives. Radiant_>|< 13:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The intent was not to be rude, but rather, to be succinct and clear. There have been far too many fallacious free speech claims being made onsite recently, and this was intended to be a quick and clear rebuttal of those claims. If others have suggestions for making it more pleasant, please, by all means, feel free to do so. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this article completely misses the rights that are provided to the copyright holder by GFDL license, namely, that all edits of a user should be attributed to him.  Grue  19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Grue, I get that you're trying to be comprehensive, but the point of the page, like a lot of other Wikipedia: space pages, is to make a quick point in response to the whining of trolls and vandals (case in point, WP:TINC). Sure, there are other rights you have; you have a right to appeal to Jimbo, you have a right to sign your posts on talk pages, you have a right to edit in the nude. You also have a right to vanish (to a degree); the point is, when it comes to free speech, you don't have a right to it. The phrase "You have two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork, and the right to leave" was not coined by me, it is a longstanding response to such nonsense arguments as "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" and I simply seized on it for this page. If it really disturbs you so much, edit the page to add other rights, or put the page on MfD; it isn't worth bartering back and forth over which rights should be enumerated on a page that is inteneded as a quick and consise response to trolls. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some people are using this page as the proof that "... editors on Wikipedia have no rights except for the right to leave and the right to fork". I don't know if this page is helpful against wiki-lawyering trolls, but it sure doesn't help in the context I cited above.  Grue  19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikilink disabled. Lets not go dragging personal sniping into this discussion.--Tznkai 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Then point those WikiLawyers to this talk page which makes the intent of this page clear. I think I'll be bold and edit the page to make it clear that some other rights exist. On second thought, the only irrevocable right I've seen here is the one Grue originally mentioned (the right to copyright over one's own edits and the right to reuse articles under the GFDL), and I think this is sufficiently covered by the "right to fork". Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal sniping? I'm not exactly sure what you're alleging...I don't know of any reason Grue & I would be sniping at each other; we disagree over the usefulness of the page, but unless I've missed something, there is nothing personal involved. Could you elaborate on exactly what you mean? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this spring up, my watch list has issues because of some moving about. Anyway grue had a wiklink from "somepeople" to a single user, and I disabled it as I felt it was innappropriate. Feel free to check the history to find out who if you insist though.--Tznkai 17:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; doesn't matter to me, I thought you were addressing the commentary back and forth between Grue and I. Anyhow, I didn't realize the page had been tagged as "official policy" at one point (not my doing, and not something I agree with). I think the current tag {{essay}} is an excellent addition. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally in agreement over this page's thesis and standard for reasoning. It says in an subtle way, that, weather its liked or not, people don't have all the rights, of say the U.S. constitution. This is wikipedia, a privately owned site, and as such, the rules set out by Jimbo and the board can and will apply. The point is, quite frankly, free speech is not an entitlement in being an wikipedian. Nor is self - expression and "group thinking". Jimbo has already expressed a clear view on this not being acceptable. If people cannot remain here without surpressing these urges, then they need to leave. There are an abundance of forums and blogs to flock to. -Zero^Talk 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people here are missing the point: that you have no right to 'free speech' is a necessary pre-requisite for our most basic rules... It's also intuitively obvious, but some people are so dense that it needs to be stated explicitly. Before blindly reverting at least attempt to make an argument that users do have a right to free speech on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't simply take the page and make it a policy by slapping a template on it. There is a process for estabilishing new policies and you will have to follow it. Calling me "a dick" won't help the matters in any way. I have objections to several phrases on this page, such as "you have only two rights" one (see discussion above). Until these are fixed, I won't support this page being a policy.  Grue  12:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you *are* being a dick when you refuse to discuss and instead just edit war and if you think that we're forbidden from pointing out anti-social behavior in others you are completely off the mark. What would you suggest be amended on the page? Be specific, because the above complaint isn't actionable. Do you think we need to be more clear that users of your GFDLed contributions (such as the Wikimedia foundation) also have some obligations related to that license? --Gmaxwell 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone arguing that this isn't policy (originally it was common law, but since the WikiLawyers insist on codification, it's had to be made explicit) provide a reason why? Wikipedia does not recognise the right of its users or editors to free speech while on Wikipedia, in the same way that you can't complain about a newspaper editor who rejected your 50-page rant abrogating your right to free speech. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note

I just want to point out, since I'm the "author" of this page (that is, I was the one who wrote the original draft and posted it here) that I never intended the page to be a policy or a guideline or anything else, for that matter. We get a lot of people who like to claim they have a right to edit Wikipeida, and that is false: They don't, nobody does. The powers that be (the Board, Jimbo, the AC in many cases, etc.) can ban anybody they like, and there is absolutley nothing that can be done about it (with the obvious point that you can appeal up the chain, but when the top says no, you're stuck). The entire point of the page was just to be a short little page that said, in no uncertain terms: "You may think you have a right to edit here, you may think that the First Amendment applies here, but you're wrong. If you want to be taken seriously, start with getting your facts straight." That's all it was supposed to be, and I want to be sure that I've made it clear what my intent was in writing it: I wasn't creating policy.

I for one don't care what the page ends up marked as; mark it policy, mark it a guideline, mark it an essay, mark it for MFD for all I care, just please, don't edit war over it. It really isn't that important, and it certainly isn't important enough to fight over. We've got a lot more serious things to worry about than the tag that is on a silly little page like this, so whomever is listening, whomever cares about how the page is marked (and as I said, I don't), please discuss it here and come to an agreement. Please. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You should have written the above on Grue's talk page.. as he's the one ignoring discussion but continuing to revert. :( Actually it is pretty important that it not be marked as just an essay. The heart of this matter *is* policy, although it could be argued this representation isn't completely representative of the underlying policy. The way the page is currently marked disclaims responsibility for it in a way which achieves the opposite of the desired effect. --Gmaxwell 20:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be tagged in any way, just not as policy. It just isn't ready yet. It wasn't me who came up with essay template. There are still some unexplored possibilities, such as guideline...  Grue  04:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't responded to the section above. --Gmaxwell 07:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My specific objection is that official policy shouldn't include false statements, such as "There are only two rights on Wikipedia". It works for an informal explanation, but the policy should not include such statements. There is always a place for a policy page on that topic, which would explain that WF has the right to block anyone and remove their contributions and so on, and this page would be an informal explanation (like WP:ENC complements WP:NOT).  Grue  11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are alone in this discussion in making the claim that that statement is false. Can you elaborate on your objection? Why is it false? --Gmaxwell 16:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because there are more than two. I already mentioned the third. It starts with "copy".  Grue  17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand what a right is, as "the right to fork" completely represents the rights a user of Wikipedia has. Users don't have any right related to copyright beyond that on Wikipedia. The users of GFDL content may decide to accept the GFDL license which allows them to distribute so long as they abide by the terms of the license (which includes attribution, and many other things), or they may decide not to accept the license in which case they gain none of the rights reserved by copyright. The rights of the users of wikipedia are not material in that discussion. Even if you are dead, the obligation on the users of GFDLed content remain. I think there is place in the page to clear that misconception, which is why it's important that you talk about it. --Gmaxwell 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Essay or Policy

To solve this Dispute one and for all. If this Essay Reflects the Policy Then A policy page Probably Already Exists on this issue.

Label this Essay as an essay and in the == See also == and == Contra == section link to the Official policy and criticism.

We cans say on the top of the page

This page is an essay but this page is the Official policy

Or

This essay reflects the Views of this Policy

and we link to The official Version while not Restricting This version.--E-Bod 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Freedom To fork

I Don't think we actually have such a freedom. We are not allowed to fork an article as a solution to an edit war. Such would create 2 Strongly Biased Articles instead of one more neutral one with the users as checks and balances--E-Bod 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Forking here means forking the entire project (or whatever parts of it you like) to another website altogether, on which you would be able to choose the methods. This is permitted under the WP:GFDL, and there are several such operations out there; http://www.answers.com is effectively one, although not philosophically. -Splash - tk 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy tag removal

I removed the policy tag, seeing that it had been added a few weeks ago. I did this for two reasons:

The first reason has nothing to do with the actual content of the page itself. It just seems like the status of this page has been a contention issue in the past. A policy should have strong community support. Right now, there here is no consensus that this is policy-- when this discussion was held in April, the conclusion seems to have been reached that it was NOT policy. In any case, I can't find any strong evidence that this really is policy, so, for that reason alone, it seems like we should leave the policy tag down until such time as it's so overwhelmingly obvious that there is a consensus, so that any fool can see that there is a huge consensus that this should be policy. Right now, it's not obvious, so we should leave the tag down until everyone is sure.

The second issue is just the tone. Official policy pages speak with the "voice" of Wikipedia-- and that voice should sound friendly and nice. This page is adversarial and a little hostile. I'm sure there's a time and place for this content and tone, but I don't know that an official policy page is that place. I totally see how someone would want to have a page to point people to in order to say "You can't sue us, so... quit threatening us, and if you don't like us, you can go somewhere else". But all the same, I'd rather not have "Mr. Wikipedia, the disembodied voice of the encyclopedia" be the one too take so gruff a tone.

Thirdly, I tend be a little uneasy about the content of this paage. It's not that it's "wrong" per se-- the page isn't wrong, it's totally legally correct. If you try to "sue" Wikipedia Foundation for violating your first amendment rights, your case will be laughed out of court. So, the page certainly may have a purpose, because if anyone threatens to sue us, it doesn't hurt for us to point out to them that they really can't do that, so they might as well not waste their time. WP:NOT also has a reminder of this sentiment.

But in a larger sense, "Free Speech" isn't just about laws, it's a different set of principles that are independent of national laws, but instead describe the ideal ways for groups of human beings to interact. Despite its title this page doesn't really address "Free Speech"-- which is a nebulous, international, semi-religious concept. I'd be more comfortable it if was entitled "Applicability of US First Amendment to Wikipedia". The fact is, free speech ideals do color Wikipedia, even if wikipedia is not unregulated free speech-- just as democratic ideals color wikipedia even if wikipedia is not a democracy. "Wikipedia is not censored", for example.

Lastly, and somewhat irrelevatly, I should point out that this page's interpretation of the First Amendment is legally over-simplistic. In the modern interpretation, the First Amendment does not apply just to congress-- we now routinely accept its application to state and local levels of government, public schools, public universities, etc. Additionally, many private entities must also respect First Amendment rights if they consitute a "public forum"-- so, for example, a shopping center cannot limit free speech, even though they are a private company.[1] None of that really matters, since I sincerely doubt any crackpot POV pusher is going to be winning a civil rights lawsuit against Wikipedia anytime soon. But I thought I'd mention that things aren't quite as straightforward as this page makes them seem.

--Alecmconroy 04:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• It isn't about laws; the point is to give a putdown to people who wikilawyer about their "right to free speech" here. We've had people proposing a bill of rights and a supreme court before. Whenever someone says e.g. "you can't block me because of free speech" we can point them here. >Radiant< 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know-- and it's useful as an essay that you can point someone to in the middle of a debate with a wikilawyer, so they can see the argument without you having to retype it every time. I'm not saying it should be deleted, I'm just saying-- if we were going to make an official policy about this issue, we should make one that "Welcoming" rather than "Hostile" or "Argumentative". I actually think the content here is perfect as it is-- an essay that makes a point, makes it forcefully, and is unapologetically curt. On the other hand, I can think of ways to say the same basic idea that aren't confrontational (e.g. here), and those might be easier to accept as a policy that speaks with official voice of Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy 14:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you can be welcoming about the fact that editing Wikipedia is a privilege rather than a right - just like our blocking policy isn't particularly friendly. >Radiant< 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's two different questions-- "Is this policy?" and "Should it be policy?". So far, I don't see a consensus that it is policy, but there's nothing in theory would stop it from being so, if there was a consensus that it is. So, let me be clear I'm not trying to say there's anything that should absolutely prevent it from wearing the policy tag, if everyone wants it to. As you point out, the blocking policy, while not QUITE so confrontational as this, certainly isn't a "welcoming" policy per se. My personal thoughts on the subject aren't grounds for removing the policy tag--- that totally just comes down to consensus/arbcom/board.

As to the question of "Should this be policy", I tend to lean "No". I personally, like this text better just as an essay. It's a fine point to make in a debate, but I hesistant to make Wikipedia's official policy "you have no rights-- if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else", ya know? There are any number of rights that people have a reasonable expectations of having when they come to wikipedia:

• There are real "rights" that are actually given under the law. People probably have a legal right not to have a biography of themselves that contains libelous information. People probably have a right to have their copyrighted information not used without their permission (excluding fair use). etc. Those come from the servers residing in Florida. etc,etc,etc.
• When Wikipedia became a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, there's a whole other slew of other rights that are granted as a result of that status. For example, just off the top of my head, candidates in elections now have the right not to have their opponent officially endorsed by Wikipedia. There's the rights of active members to vote in Board elections, and the right of people to be active members unless their membership is terminated by 4/5ths of the board. etc,etc,etc.
• In addition to the legal rights, there's a whole set of principles that I think most users would agree to as sort of "moral rights". Like, a right to edit so long as you don't violate any of the rules or otherwise become disruptive. Or a right to not have race play a role in how you are treated, etc etc etc. blah blah blah.

So, having a policy that says "Your only right is the right to fork and the right to leave" gets us into EXACTLY the kind of debate we shouldn't be having. I can't believe I even wrote this post, because the whole point of this page is that we shouldn't be dragged into the exactly the kind of conversation I'm having right now. :). The whole point of this is "Look, whatever rights you have, you don't have the right to do what you're doing, so just shut up about your rights and let's get back to writing an encyclopedia".  :) So, I know this whole comment of mine, going into stupid lawyer details about rights, is exactly what this is trying to prevent. lol. To have an official policy that says "Your only right is to leave" is to get into exactly the kind of debate that makes writing a "wikipedia bill of rights" such a bad idea.

If we want to have a policy that says "Your only right is to go somewhere else", we have to ask "Is that, literally, true?" and therein we have exactly the kind of debate we shouldn't be having. On the other hand, this makes splendid essay. The fact is-- when talk of "rights" come up, 999 times out of 1000, there is no such right, so there's noting wrong with saying "Dude, nobody's violating your rights". Few things are more useful in the realm of debate than the age old retort "And if you don't like it, you can go someplace else!". I've used it myself a million times, several on Wikipedia. It's a fine thing to say-- it's just a much better essay than a policy.

--Alecmconroy 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Problem is, if you call it an essay, those people who need to be told it will ignore it because such people will ignore anything that doesn't seem at least somewhat official. >Radiant< 10:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ext links broken?

At least at the moment the www.usemod.com ext links are giving 500 server errors. 76.22.4.86 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility of the page.

This page could be considered rude and disrespectful, kind of like reverse wikilawyering.

I understand the point the page is making, but honestly, do we have to be so crass and uncivil about it? I'm going to try and edit it to make the knife a little more hidden in the toga, so to speak. Please advise me if you'd rather I didn't.

Katana0182 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do! I agree completely with your assessment. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.

I did it. I think that it looks a bit less hostile, and still gets the point across to the wikilawyers.Katana0182 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This does not address...

Someone may want to go ahead and put something up against this -

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

I can see someone trying to defend their insignificant article with that.Gomezbuster (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you have to remember...this is a UN declaration we are talking about. If Wikipedia doesn't follow it, the worst they will have to worry about is a strongly worded letter. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)