User:Jaredscribe/There is justice

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.

Abstract and Conclusion
Therefore,


 * our own WP:Five pillars assume the contrary proposition, that THERE IS JUSTICE, in concurrence with the common moral sense of humankind, and indeed require it.
 * The proposition that WP:There Is No Justice is therefore absurd based on an a priori analysis of natural law and human nature. Given that it is contrary to our WP:5P and to our Founders Statement of Principles, the frequent citation of now-deprecated essay is evidence - but not of inherent problems with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation - rather of elements of corruption and systemic incompetence within the political community of Wikipedia:  own behavior by screwy cliques of over-priveleged and under-competent editors.
 * Therefore the biases and injustice in Wikipedia can be corrected; The project need not be abandoned or forked.  The solution will be the subject of a future analysis, and we invite further study from interested editors and readers.  Circulate this essay as an immediate action step and counter-measure.  We invite all candidates for administrative and bureaucratic roles to make TIJ a campaign pledge, to renounce the TINJ essay, and for voters to expect this of their candidates.

Polemical Argument in Rebuttal of TINJ
The government's brazen threat, in their proposition that WP:There Is No Justice is dogmatically authoritarian and therefore anti-scholastic, and within a learning community, it is quite frankly impossible. It is mere ad baculum, and fallacious. An encyclopedia will naturally attract students who desire knowledge, who seek belief in that which is verifiably true. At least some of them will find it; this knowledge will inevitably spread; imposters will be unmasked; and JUSTICE WILL, at least some of the time, BE DONE. The governments absurd authoritarianism is plausible within a totalitarian nation-state, perhaps, but within an encyclopedia, it is quite impossible. In context of prior analysis, their essay is demonstrably incoherent in, even before ever making a single contribution, editing or experiencing the injustice first hand in content disputes.

After joining the project as an editor and encountering the tendentious ignorance of many incumbent managing editors, and finding almost no allies except those who are blocked, (I, Jaredscribe) being driven into exile into foreign wikipedias, later returning to examine the policies of the English wikipedia closely, fighting back, and gathering a year and a half of evidence of content disputes, posterior analysis shows that, thankfully, the loyal (and original) wikipedians fundamentally don't believe the wikipedia government on this point. There is no need to drop out and become a vandal, or an academic, or a media critic. WP:BURYES#If the bureaucracy impedes the encyclopedic mission, fight back. The moral error of their present denial of reality is, already, fundamentally rejected by our own wikipedia core consensus documents, policies and guidelines, which demonstrate unequivocally that THERE SHOULD BE JUSTICE, and that the incumbents expect from all newcomers. They make the fundamental, implicit assumption that THERE IS JUSTICE. Newcomers, therefore, have a right to demand it from incumbents.

The authoritarianism won't work here, thanks to the GPL and the free culture licenses. Contrary to their preposterous private encroachment on the public domain, Wikipedia is not owned by the "Wikimedia Foundation", whatever that is. Its owned by the public. All that the foundation owns is the domain name and the server farm to run the thing. The code is all Free Libre Open Source, and database dumps are available to anyone who want to fork or mirror the project. They could, conceivably, block me the writer of the essay from the project for the crime of lese majesty in writing this essay, as if it were some kind of WP:Personal Attack or a failure to WP:Assume Good Faith. Editors have been silenced by such rebukes and threats before.

Foreign wikipedias who affiliate have their own policies and procedures that differ in various ways. You could always go into exile in a foreign country, without having to leave your house, and return later to the Anglosphere, with supernormal knowledge and understanding on some subject, and make repayments. Incumbents with thousands of edits and dozens of barnstars, should not demand Civility from newcomers, unless they expect to be repaid with Justice.

The newcomer may prove to be a scholar.

Don't let cabals and cliques gaslight you into despair and helplessness with their mere essays, their presumptuous boasts, their temporary incumbency on this domain, and their ability to trade on the name of our wikipedia in shameless fundraising far in excess of what we need, and to waste the money on who know what, probably on their own salaries. Please don't contribute more than a token amount of money to wikipedia. Contribute knowledge. Contribute justice.

They are not in charge. They are irrelevant, and can be safely ignored. Eventually they will comply, or else they will go away.

The scholars will remain. If you someday find this essay deleted, and its original author indefinitely blocked, restore the essay and carry on the Encyclopedic Mission, which is itself an act of WP:Righting Great Wrongs, in those places where the obvious and verifiable truths are suppressed and denied. Endure, students, and know that yes, THERE IS JUSTICE. Teach them to practice it, even your own sons and daughters, and students, and be fruitful and multiply.

Rough Draft with inline response to the original
−	Editors have duties to their readers, to share alike with them the same rights they have been granted.

You tenure here as an editor is a privilege, not a right. Wikipedia is privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which sets the terms of usage. Therefore, while all readers, including editors, are guaranteed by US and international copyright law the right to copy or borrow both code and content and to fork the project itself and start a competitor, editors have no legal right to edit the Wikipedia site itself. No rights are being denied if users are blocked, and thinking in terms of a legal framework is counterproductive unless this is understood.

Readers rights −	The MediaWiki software that runs this site, on the other hand, is libre, Free, and Open Source Software under the GNU GPL, which guarantees certain rights. All readers, including editors, are guaranteed the freedom to deploy it to host their own wikis, or to redistribute it, modify it, or distribute it with modifications. Content posted to Wikipedia is in the Creative Commons Share Alike. This means you can reuse content found here, and make derivative works, but not in a closed or proprietary manner: you must share alike with your users the rights the same rights shared with you, or MediaWiki may take action to shut your site down. This copyleft guarantees that these rights are passed on to future generations of readers.

The Wikipedia dispute resolution system is not fair. Wikipedia is a subset of life; life is not fair is a notable opinion about real life. If this fact is a cause of excessive stress for you then editing topics that are potentially controversial may not be a good activity for you. Instead, consider editing in subject matter where justice is considered a virtue, and both logic and science are highly valued.

It's not about you. The purposes of Wikipedia dispute resolution are:


 * Help ensure encyclopedia quality, and truthfulness.

It's not about you. The purposes of Wikipedia dispute resolution are:


 * Don't bite the newcomers

Aristotelian ethics holds "justice" to be the chief of the 4 cardinal virtues, moral sense being deeply rooted in the nature of humans as social and rational animals.

Arbitrators have a duty to at least aim for it. Arbitrators have a duty to remain accountable to the community, and not arrogate more authority than they are given as servants of the encyclopedic community.