CrowsNest FRAMBAN post

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Post Reply
User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

CrowsNest FRAMBAN post

Post by Auggie » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:10 pm

CrowsNest has posted a rather lengthy essay about Fram's ban. I'm not going to repost the whole thing, but it's there if you want to read it.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1276

Anyway I am going to address one point.
CrowsNest wrote: So speaking in terms of absolute truth, the community has no rights. Certainly not to free assembly, expression, self-determination, self-defense, or any other right you can apply to a nominal group in any other context.
CrowNest goes on to imply that because the community has no rights, it's ok for the Foundation to ban individual users for any reason or no reason at all.

That's interesting, but very simplistic. Crow even goes on to talk about the idea of a sovereign. I hate comparing Wikipedia to political systems, but in this case it makes some sense. The community and the WMF have a contract with each other beyond the terms of use. By the longstanding custom of allowing the community, admin group, and ArbCom to make most of the major decisions, the Foundation has established an expectation that long-term users will not be banned without some kind of due process.

It's just not done. And it's every wiki-addict's worst nightmare to have put in over a decade of hard work and emotional effort and then to be tossed aside, blinked out of existence on the site. Whether this is a healthy personal attitude is irrelevant. Participating on the site is very important to them, and being summarily banned is a painful and traumatic experience.

So maybe Wikipedians have no rights, but they can certainly decide that the WMF is failing to uphold its end of the bargain, and they can make noise. They can even disrupt and vandalize the site. WMF broke the agreed-upon rules. Everything is on the table now. No one has to leave quietly.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: CrowsNest FRAMBAN post

Post by EarlStatler » Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:02 am

But Crow is right, a user can not claim any right, there are tons of case law they may block who they want.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: CrowsNest FRAMBAN post

Post by Auggie » Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:25 am

EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:02 am
But Crow is right, a user can not claim any right, there are tons of case law they may block who they want.
Rights in the context of Wikipedia only exist by convention. For over 15 years, there has been a hands-off precedent set by the WMF. By custom problem users like Fram were handled by the community.

The WMF changes this at their own peril. Just as the users have no formal rights, the WMF has no right to free volunteer labor and cooperation. Wikipedians are generally well-behaved but that can change.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: CrowsNest FRAMBAN post

Post by EarlStatler » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:41 am

Auggie wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:25 am
EarlStatler wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:02 am
But Crow is right, a user can not claim any right, there are tons of case law they may block who they want.
Rights in the context of Wikipedia only exist by convention. For over 15 years, there has been a hands-off precedent set by the WMF. By custom problem users like Fram were handled by the community.

The WMF changes this at their own peril. Just as the users have no formal rights, the WMF has no right to free volunteer labor and cooperation. Wikipedians are generally well-behaved but that can change.
You are complete right. Wikipedia is a no once child. It has no daddy and no mamma.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests