Wikipedia talk:Free speech

Simplifying the point

The article as it stands explains the legal aspects but I wonder if the point won't be clearer to some people if the article addressed it in very simple and practical terms, asking them, for example, if they really think that they have the right to buy a ticket to a movie, walk into the theater, and then stand up ten minutes into the film and give a speech. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if the theater is crowded, and the speech is fiery. EEng (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this page misses the point

I don't think anyone really thinks that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives them the right to say what they want on Wikipedia. That's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia is a community, and like any well-run community, it espouses freedom of speech as a basic principle (i.e. WP:NOTCENSORED). It is not the same freedom of speech as for a country, because people don't have citizenship here; they don't have to live here; they can go work with a different project that better meets their goals. But it is the same freedom of speech that prevents the average social host from ejecting a guest who turns out to have a different opinion on political issues. The parallel is that whether in a country or a private organization, extensive freedom to discuss and disagree is productive. The difference is that at some point there is a readily available boundary to the project where people leave and move on to the next. But that reflects that the size and scope of the project is directly proportional to its ability to incorporate conflicting viewpoints. The statement that "you can go and make a new fork of Wikipedia" only sounds like an unlikely alternative because we don't censor sex and fireworks and discussions about the status of Hawaii or Tibet. If you double the amount of censorship that you impose, you halve the maximum total size that Wikipedia can ever reach. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this wise comment by Wnt (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the sense in which the whole "free speech" issue on Wikipedia is missing the point is that article space is different than talk space, and communications outside of Wikipedia. I think it is well known and understood in the community that you just can't cry about free speech every time when it comes to article content in an encyclopedia. However, when it comes to communication about the content, there is no rational reason at all for all the limitations that Wikipedia has imposed. The rule about canvassing is completely unnecessary, and unhelpful, for instance. There are several other examples of chilled free speech, where there is no reason for it in a civil community. Greg Bard (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but...

In terms of restricting users, isn't Wikipedia restricted by US Civil Rights law? It would be illegal, wouldn't it, to restrict the contributions of a user on the grounds of their race, colour, sex, religion or national origin. The page seems to suggest not ("As a private website, Wikipedia has the legal right to block, ban, or otherwise restrict any individual from editing its pages, or accessing its content, with or even without reason"). Unless I am wrong as a matter of fact, shouldn't this be mentioned? --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WP could discriminate on such grounds, though in practice any attempt to do so systematically would almost certainly be fatal to the entire project because it would drive away most volunteers (at least I hope that's what would happen). The point here is not that WP really would want to do such a thing, but that people who claim that they're gonna take a claim of "discrimination" by WP to court wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so the community can rest easy without bothering to placate such people. (The reason hotels and so forth cannot practice such discrimination in the US is that they are "places of public accommodation", which triggers a chain of special legal machinery.) EEng (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this essay talk page due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Public Charity or Private Foundation

Which is WMF? Using the IRS definitions I would surmise the former yet they act like the latter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WMF is not a private organization as indicated in the article nor is it a private foundation according to the US government: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/9/90/501%28c%293_Letter.png Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps paradoxically, a public charity can be a private organization. EEng 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Third legal right

There are only two legal rights mentioned, but there is a third one: copyright. An editor may only release text under a copyleft license only if he/she has the copyright for it (or if it is fair use or public domain). So, technically, editors retain the copyright for their contributions: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there can be no copyleft without copyright. My edits become copyleft because I own the copyright (no, it's not a paradox). Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Right; added. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how copyright is a right in the sense discussed on this page, particularly given that the essay specifically addresses free speech rights. If I comment on an editor's talk page and that editor later copies sections from their talk to an archive, do I have the right to revert the copy per WP:CWW by claiming my copyright has been infringed? A wikilawyer might claim that refactoring egregious personal attacks in their comments is a violation of their copyright. It may be worth including WP:C under see also, but the addition as a free speech right needs further thought. Copyright (apart from secondary WP:CWW issues) concerns third parties and their re-use of material added by contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

By your logic, "the right to go away" has nothing to do with free speech either. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sentence is wrong way round

We have this: In short, editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation. Surely it should be In short, the existence of Wikipedia is a privilege granted to the Wikimedia Foundation by the editors of Wikipedia.; or words to that effect. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Propose change

Change was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Free_speech&oldid=1000668491 Reason to take it back: All pages is covered by disclaimers (Wikipedia:General disclaimers). [ Talk to me ] Show! Music Core and more favorite 03:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)