 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Response to the claims that WP:There is no justice, that the Wikimedia foundation reserves all rights to itself, and editors have none. On the contrary, justice is a virtue practiced by some if not many; moral sense rooted in our human nature as social and rational animals; arbitrators have a duty to at least aim for it. Wikipedia is (and should remain) an open and transparent community; there must be no cabal. Editor rights enshrined in GPL license. |
A PRIORI STIPULATIONS
- Readers of wikipedia have rights that supercede the privelege of editors, because our goal is an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, not to privelege eachother.
- Readers deserve articles that are ACCURATE and WP:VERIFIABLE, which is to say, JUSTIFIED by reference to evidence, and the testimony.
- This justification is arrived at, only through a reliable process - WP:RELIABILITY and reliable sources.
- Consensus of justification is arrived at in the spirit of scholarly discourse, WP:DISCUSS. Edit summaries and talk pages are the medium of this dialectic. Hence the 3RR and the prohibition on edit warring.
- In addition to the justification or repudiation of propositions asserted, there must be justice between an editor and his or her colleague. Without this Justice, there can be no civil society, nor Encyclopedia. And we ourselves concur, insofar as we demand WP:CIVILITY.