On 15/03/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 15/03/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I am curious about the practicality of trying to prosecute someone for vandalism of a wiki. Andrew Schlafly seems to think it's possible, given the warning on the Conservapedia main page.
"Conservapedia claims that posting obscene material or vandalizing the site is illegal, and could result in a jail sentence of ten years. It makes these claims on the basis of Title 18 of the United States Code, specifically 18 USC § 1470 (with respect to obscenity) and 18 USC § 1030 (with respect to vandalism)."
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia)
How would the courts look at vandalism when you have given someone the ability to edit the site? Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia only allows logged-in editing. Does that mean that we have a stronger case to complain about vandalism (since, literally, anyone can edit, so we aren't "approving" the vandals) or a weaker case (since, literally, anyone can edit)?
Probably not the best approach to making the wiki a comfortable place for people to edit.
If you don't get 10 years for vandalising public places obscenely, why would you get 10 years for vandalising a wiki? The latter is far easier and less expensive to reverse.
Do they have a user agreement that specifically states that vandals will be prosecuted?
IMNAL, but it appears to me that 1) they may be making threats they cannot possibly carry out, 2) if they can it may not be worth the effort, and 3) not seeing where we should care much what they do.
A bit of common sense where common sense was due :) That said, I'm not sure you're right about 3 - litigation against vandalism is not something Wikimedia should engage in (at least, I can't think of a scenario where Wikimedia could justifiably use the threat of prosecution against vandals), but it is still interesting to consider how the law would treat wiki vandalism.