[WikiEN-l] I wonder if the FTC decision on blogs covers Wikipedia edits

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/10/8 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>   
>> If you are in the US and you blog and are paid or receive oher
>> commercial benefits for it, the FTC requires you to reveal the
>> relationship:
>>
>> http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/10/new-ftc-federal-trade-commission-guidelines-disclose-product-review-blogola-payola-favorable-blog-comments-more-transparency.html?EXTKEY=KEYCODE=OTC-ConsumeristRSS
>>
>> Now, would this cover Wikipedia edits?
>>     
>
> Make sure you read this sentence:
>
> "The guides, last updated in 1980, are administrative interpretations
> of the law aimed at helping advertisers comply with the Federal Trade
> Commission Act, and they’re not binding law themselves."
>
> If you want to try and interpret the guides, make sure you do so with
> that fact in mind.
>   
Hmmm, I doubt Wikipedia takes people who spam it to court anyway. But 
this idea may may some mileage in it. "We not like" backed up with "FTC 
not like" sounds like a more powerful argument. Something the paymasters 
might understand, not reading further than "Federal".

Charles