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)?
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?
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.
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.
Oldak Quill wrote:
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.
I think the practical problem would be to find a prosecutor who cared. Real-world graffiti costs significant money and time to remove, plus there are constituents (read: voters) calling City Hall to do something about it. For wiki vandalism, exactly which elected official are you going to complain to?
A crafty approach might be to create bios on all prosecutors, and then just wait for those to be vandalized. :-)
Stan
On 3/15/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
I think the practical problem would be to find a prosecutor who cared. Real-world graffiti costs significant money and time to remove, plus there are constituents (read: voters) calling City Hall to do something about it. For wiki vandalism, exactly which elected official are you going to complain to?
A crafty approach might be to create bios on all prosecutors, and then just wait for those to be vandalized. :-)
So its a wiki (free, open) that avoids Wikipedias "complex copyright rules", bases its community policing on threats, misconstrues our usage of "vandalism" to be equivalent to the legal usage, follows SPOV (Schlafly POV), and considers parodies to be encyclopedic.
Uncyclopedia has a run for its money.
-Stevertigo
On 15/03/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
So its a wiki (free, open) that avoids Wikipedias "complex copyright rules", bases its community policing on threats, misconstrues our usage of "vandalism" to be equivalent to the legal usage, follows SPOV (Schlafly POV), and considers parodies to be encyclopedic. Uncyclopedia has a run for its money.
Yer not wrong:
http://untravel.blogspot.com/2007/03/conservapedia-testing-russells-law.html
- d.
On 3/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/03/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
So its a wiki (free, open) that avoids Wikipedias "complex copyright rules", bases its community policing on threats, misconstrues our usage of "vandalism" to be equivalent to the legal usage, follows SPOV (Schlafly POV), and considers parodies to be encyclopedic. Uncyclopedia has a run for its money.
Yer not wrong:
http://untravel.blogspot.com/2007/03/conservapedia-testing-russells-law.html
Wow - I actually picked the wrong one.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:45:26 -0700, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
So its a wiki (free, open) that avoids Wikipedias "complex copyright rules", bases its community policing on threats, misconstrues our usage of "vandalism" to be equivalent to the legal usage, follows SPOV (Schlafly POV), and considers parodies to be encyclopedic. Uncyclopedia has a run for its money.
Nah. Uncyclopedia is actually funny.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Umpires
Guy (JzG)
Guettarda 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)?
It would be great if they actually filed such a case. If they do we should make a public show of support. :-)
Ec
On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Guettarda 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)?
IANAL, but 18 USC § 1030 is irrelevant unless somebody uses the wiki in question to leak classified information, commit fraud, or compromise a "protected computer".
Jim Redmond jim@scrubnugget.com