[WikiEN-l] Re: WHEELER's anti-Semitism

Wed Jul 7 16:07:14 UTC 2004

Michael Snow wrote:

> The legal concept of a "public forum" applies specifically to 
> government property. In particular, it covers property like public 
> streets, sidewalks, and parks that have traditionally been used for 
> civic assembly and discussion. Wikipedia as a website is operated by a 
> private nonprofit organization, and Wikipedia as a community is a 
> collection of private individuals. The public can participate, and 
> nearly all activity happens "in public", but none of that makes this a 
> public forum in a legal sense, because it's not owned by the public. 

That's an unduly narrow definition of "public forum" and appears 
contrary to the generally held impression of that term.  Your particular 
definition should be backed up with a source.  It is more common to 
think of that expression as a space (including a virtual one) where 
members of the general public can come to express their views, and hear 
the views of others.  In some jurisdictions a privat company wanting a 
zoning change can be required to sponsor a public forum at its own 
expense.  This does not mean that public fora are completely without 
rules; they're often needed to keep a meeting from descending into 
complete chaos.

> Please do not confuse having the ability to do something on Wikipedia 
> with having the right to do it. Wikipedia has every right to prohibit 
> advertising, or removal of advertising, depending on what policy the 
> Wikipedia community wants to follow with respect to advertising. Same 
> goes for hate-speech. The question is about what policy we want, and 
> how to define it. 

Adequately defining advertising is much easier than defining hate speech 
or NPOV.  The borderlands of these two can be very broad, but we still 
need to look at it on a case by case basis.  We can list general 
characteristics of hate speech that need to be considered, but the 
presence of one or two of these characteristics need not be conclusive 
proof that hat speech is being practised.

Holocaust denial has been regarded as a characteristic of anti-semitism, 
but one must still have regard to the context. 

> Just a general reminder: editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a 
> right. The privilege is granted liberally, but it can be restricted or 
> taken away, though that will usually happen only in extreme 
> circumstances.

We have all heard this stale distinction before in many different 
circumstances.  It seldom rises above the status of word play, and does 
not assist us in finding a constructive solution.  There likely would be 
broad general support for banning hate speech, and that's why your 
argument is useless.  The problem is in defining what we mean.

Ec