2009/4/16 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
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.
If I were charged with something like that, I would argue (although IANAL, so I may be wrong) that neither the policies or the warnings come from the owner of the servers so they don't count. Only the owner of the server (or their delegate) can authorise or not authorise modifications, and I'm not sure "the community" is a legitimate delegate. I don't know how it would go down in court, but I don't think it would be at all clear cut.
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.
I think our best chances are to use the media to fight this, not the police/courts. We should issue a statement saying he's lying through his teeth, if that is the case, or that his actions are seriously inappropriate, if he did make the edits. There are people in the media that are on our side, we should be able to get something published.