In a message dated 4/17/2009 11:35:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com writes:
> Sanger's outlook could be characterized as a belief that the way to
> achieve
> quality is to pursue it. Wikipedia has gotten where it is by allowing
> quality to overrun it.>>
-----------------------------
Would this be the same expression: "On Wikipedia, we have the full spectrum
of articles, from very good to sorta crappy."
Is that what you mean? We don't enforce highest quality on all articles.
We simply pick those articles of highest quality to enthusiastically
promote. Is this what you mean?
Will Johnson
**************
Join ChristianMingle.com® FREE! Meet Christian Singles in
your area. Start now!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221246370x1201421635/aol?redir=htt…
src=platforma&adid=aolfooter&newurl=reg_path.html)
Glad to have an expert on hand!
Personally I think this would be more a section 3 offense (unauthorized modification) rather than section 1 (unauthorized access). Could there be a case here?
I think it is arguable that although editors are encouraged to edit - as you said, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - they are encouraged to edit within the parameters of the policies set down. It would be more clear cut if someone vandalized after being warned - that may be a clearer indication that they knew their modification was unauthorized.
Articles like Rod Liddle's do huge amounts of damage to us - they encourage people to think that vandalism is normal and acceptable and that we don't care about the accuracy of our encyclopedia. I think it would do wonders for our credibility and reputation - not to mention cutting down on vandalism - if a few vandals were taken through the courts.
In terms of whether the CPS would prosecute - probably not, but a high profile caution would do as good a job from our point of view.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Nash" <pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, 16 April, 2009 23:01:14 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, deliberately making an
>>> unauthorized modification to computer data which impairing the
>>> reliability of the data>>
>>
>> -----------
>>
>> "Unauthorized" implies that there is an "authorized".
>> As far as Wikipedia is concerned I'm not sure we have an authority
>> who is granting rights to make particular changes.
Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here; Section 1 of the 1990 Act (about
which I have written extensively) criminalises "unauthorised access, knowing
this is unauthorised".
Our mantra, "This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" would seem to be
a perfect defence, if not on the actual point of "authority", certainly on
the point of the requisite state of mind. The position is somewhat different
for users who have been specifically blocked and/or banned, but as yet, we
haven't felt it necessary to consider criminal proceedings, although one or
two obvious cases spring to mind.
The other considerations are (1) whether the Police and Crown Prosecution
Service would think it a good idea to spend much public money on what is a
summary offence, triable only by magistrates, and with a maximum sentence of
six months imprisonment (and not the five years previously mentioned; that
is reserved for fraudulent purposes), and (2) whether the media would not
see such action by us as nut-cracking by sledgehammer and pillory us for
taking disproportionate action. Arguably counter-productive in the wrong
hands, perhaps.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:38:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
> Then why, David, are academics, professionals and other experts in their
> fields still treated with such hostility in this Project?>>
---------------------
The role of experts is to help find the sources, not to include their own
original theories about those sources. That's been the essential problem
with experts in the project. They want to write up their own unpublished, or
unvetted information into the pages.
An expert in this project needs to realize that we are not original
publishers, we are only re-publishers. Whatever you put here, when questioned,
needs to be able to be backed up with some published authority.
Will Johnson
**************
Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at
$479
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=htt…)
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:31:41 -0400, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
> Anyway, I was just rereading some of the discussion of Larry Sanger and
> Wikipedia, and noticed that while Wales claims that Jeremy Rosenfeld was the
> first to propose using wikis to work on Nupedia, he admits that it was
> Sanger who convinced him to actually do it.
But Ben Kovitz claims to be the one who, in turn, gave Sanger the
idea of using an open public wiki for encyclopedia development:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
My reading of the Act - although I don't think there have ever been any relevant case histories - is that section 3 offenses are committed the intent is any one of:
a) impairing computer or program operation
b) preventing access
c) impairing the reliability of data
I would imagine vandalism would fall pretty squarely under (c).
Having looked into it further, I would agree it would have to go to summary trial which would mean a maximum 3 months in jail or £2,500 fine as the value of the damage is less than £2,000 (CJA88s38)
---- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Nash" <pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 00:18:42 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
Andrew Turvey wrote:
>> Glad to have an expert on hand!
>>
>> Personally I think this would be more a section 3 offense
>> (unauthorized modification) rather than section 1 (unauthorized
>> access). Could there be a case here?
The problem is that the *unauthorised modification* under section 3 must
be with "intent to degrade its operation".
In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com writes:
> Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, deliberately making an unauthorized
> modification to computer data which impairing the reliability of the data>>
-----------
"Unauthorized" implies that there is an "authorized".
As far as Wikipedia is concerned I'm not sure we have an authority who is
granting rights to make particular changes.
**************
Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at
$479
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=htt…)