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@blueyonder.co.uk To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@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@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrturvey@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
2009/4/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
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.
I wouldn't issue a statement. You might however wish to write to his editor, documenting the evidence, and suggesting that his fictional piece is not up to scratch as Spectator-quality material.
- d.
2009/4/17 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
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.
I wouldn't issue a statement. You might however wish to write to his editor, documenting the evidence, and suggesting that his fictional piece is not up to scratch as Spectator-quality material.
True, that would be a better first step. If they issue a retraction, job done. If they don't, I still think a statement might be useful.
Spectator-quality material? I presume you're being ironic!
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 00:10:00 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
2009/4/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
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.
I wouldn't issue a statement. You might however wish to write to his editor, documenting the evidence, and suggesting that his fictional piece is not up to scratch as Spectator-quality material.
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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", and this is a vague proposition which I don't think is intended to cover vandalism. The offence covers, for example, modification of access rights such that certain users are unable to use the computer, and the introduction of viruses or worms. The intention need not be directed at any particular computer, so this covers the situation where a hacker uses the computer as an innocent "zombie" to transmit malicious software to other computers. So I don't think it applies to our servers. We have defences already against malicious attacks.
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.
Well, any Level 1 warning includes a pointer to our most important policies, and the effect of ignoring friendly warnings is escalation to more stringent ones. However, my opinion that the prosecuting authorities would be reluctant to act remains.
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.
My impression of Rod Liddle is that he is talking to people who either don't understand what he is talking about, and if they do, don't have the expertise to do anything about it, or don't care. Basically, he's talking to himself.
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.
Cautions don't tend to get publicised.
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for his column.
Nathan
2009/4/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for his column.
Well, he also does appear to be libelling the wikipedia, and he's doing it from the UK, which is the easiest country to prove libel; the truth isn't even an absolute defence against libel in the UK.
It would be a good idea to check that some or all of the events never actually happened. Note that it could have happened months or even years ago; nobody has checked that far back; and we need to make sure that it wasn't oversighted or something.
Nathan
2009/4/17 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
2009/4/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for his column.
Well, he also does appear to be libelling the wikipedia, and he's doing it from the UK, which is the easiest country to prove libel; the truth isn't even an absolute defence against libel in the UK.
I discussed that with Mike Godwin and he pointed out that libel law applies to individuals, it doesn't really protect organisations (I think there is another part of law that does, but I can't remember what it is called). Also, the truth is an absolute defence under UK libel law for something like this - as far as I am aware, the only time it isn't is for spent convictions (and even then, there is a public interest clause).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/17 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
2009/4/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for his column.
Well, he also does appear to be libelling the wikipedia, and he's doing it from the UK, which is the easiest country to prove libel; the truth isn't even an absolute defence against libel in the UK.
I discussed that with Mike Godwin and he pointed out that libel law applies to individuals, it doesn't really protect organisations (I think there is another part of law that does, but I can't remember what it is called).
In the UK, "malicious falsehood" protects incorporated bodies.
2009/4/17 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
2009/4/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the fact that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop for his column.
Well, he also does appear to be libelling the wikipedia, and he's doing it from the UK, which is the easiest country to prove libel; the truth isn't even an absolute defence against libel in the UK.
It would be a good idea to check that some or all of the events never actually happened. Note that it could have happened months or even years ago; nobody has checked that far back; and we need to make sure that it wasn't oversighted or something.
The best thing we can do in this situation, if he is wrong, is to produce evidence that he is wrong and submit it to the magazine, requesting a retraction. Claims that malicious vandalism could stay on a famous sportsperson's page for a week are damaging to us and, I suspect, without any legitimacy.
I'm not sure why we're discussing legal options. Even if there were legal avenues open to us, it would be silly to pursue them. Rod Liddle is respected in some circles and we'd only invite ire for pursuing him. We should determine if that Spectator article contains untruths and, if it does, we should ensure that a retraction is issued.
2009/4/17 Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're discussing legal options. Even if there were legal avenues open to us, it would be silly to pursue them.
I endorse this comment entirely. It seems a little surreal to read some of the discussion in this thread, which whilst no doubt interesting from an academic perspective, doesn't sit very comfortably with our normal practice!
We've managed fine for eight years without suing people who do breaching experiments. Suddenly arguing we ought to change this in the case of someone who probably didn't do one as such anyway is a little uncharacteristic...
Oldak Quill wrote:
We should determine if that Spectator article contains untruths and, if it does, we should ensure that a retraction is issued.
Basically we should (if anything) ask someone to write a polite letter to the editor of the Spectator, pointing out a few things:
Sir,
- it is fashionable to write certain kinds of knocking copy about WP, but we find that this can conceal lazy journalism and misunderstanding of how the site works, and there is a history of hacks fabricating stories this way; - WP has a perfectly good complaints mechanism for dealing with untruths posted on the site; - like any website, WP reserves the right to regulate what is posted and take action against those who disregard the purpose for which it is designed.
In the light of which, we think more professional courtesy should be shown than Rod Liddle has done: we have plenty of attention-seekers coming to edit Wikipedia, but we take a dim view of "bored teenager in bedroom" rampaging around on what is a public service. So a retraction of misleading comments would be appreciated.
NB The Spectator is reasonably stylish, prose-wise, so a letter written for publication should be well written.
Charles
2009/4/17 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Basically we should (if anything) ask someone to write a polite letter to the editor of the Spectator, pointing out a few things:
/me hands job to Charles, to write as a long-term editor and administrator
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/17 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Basically we should (if anything) ask someone to write a polite letter to the editor of the Spectator, pointing out a few things:
/me hands job to Charles, to write as a long-term editor and administrator
Ooops, how did that happen so fast? OK, assuming the Speccie is on email, I'll do said letter to editor, and ask others not to run too much interference, unless this thread has further to go.
Charles
Are you certain that you can libel an entity which isn't living?
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
2009/4/17 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
Whether the law applies is moot, for a few reasons but including the
fact
that it appears he didn't do anything except use Wikipedia as a prop
for
his column.
Well, he also does appear to be libelling the wikipedia, and he's doing it from the UK, which is the easiest country to prove libel; the truth isn't even an absolute defence against libel in the UK.
It would be a good idea to check that some or all of the events never actually happened. Note that it could have happened months or even years ago; nobody has checked that far back; and we need to make sure that it wasn't oversighted or something.
Nathan
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l