Charles Podles wrote:
(Last message accidentally sent prematurely---sorry.
Continued:)
Is s/he just blowing smoke, or is this a serious issue? What is the
relationship between the policy of each Wikipedia and the policies of
the Foundation in general?
I can't really comment on policies with any authority, but the implied
premise of the complaint is flawed. The Constitutional protection of
anonymous free speech is directed at governmental and public issues of
censorship, while Wikipedia is (believe it or not) a more "private"
enterprise. The rules of Wikipedia are internal to Wikipedia, and users
give de facto agreement to such rules when they set virtual foot within
its borders. No inherent rights are being violated.
On the other hand, I'm of the belief that Wikipedia darn well SHOULD
protect anonymous free speech, insofar as it is not harmful to the
premises and implementations of Wikipedia itself. That's more a matter
of personal preference and beliefs as regards what makes the most
effective approach to managing the project, though, and not of an
ethical adherence to ideals of natural human rights. I think.
I reserve the right to change my opinion(s) later, if I should suddenly
consider new angles on the matter that had not previously occurred to me.
--
Chad