[Wikien-l] Looking at the real world

Sat Sep 3 20:24:48 UTC 2005

No contract exists between Wikipedia and any user
towards whom it has taken admin decisions without the
user having any defence process before the whole
community, and without dispute resolution being tried.
In trying to prove me wrong you've shown why I'm
right: any rules of license or contract that were
published to users were alongside rules on how users
and the community relate to each other. The admin
decisions without a defence process have been defended
on grounds that "You are not entitled to anything" and
that there aren't any rules any more consistently than
when it suits the community to apply them. All
statements of that nature have broken the terms on
which you received any contributed words, and hence
any license or contract.

In answer to Geni: back a week ago when she wrote "Am
I coreect in thinking you are User:Tern" I answered
her with an email asking to be informed of how to
access dispute resolution and VfC while under a block.
She ignored it. So by her own hand she is in no
position to claim I have no case.

Direct intervention to remove words is not "an eye for
an eye" at all. It's the same as directly taking back
stolen property when its ownership is traceable.

In answer to Sean: it's awareness of an illegality,
rather than necessarily a crime, because I wouldn't be
clear whether it's criminal or civil. For the FBI to
have a claim to prosecute internet users in other
countries would be an interesting one, at least giving
it clearer responsibilities in return over activities
in your country that affect folk elsewhere.

___________________________________________________________ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com