Add the information about their behaviour to the article. Just make sure it is accurate, near the top, and gets published somewhere that can be used as a reliable source. Even if this only sticks 50% of the time it is not something they will want to risk. If the foundation is willing to stick their neck out a little they could tag such pages with a notice that they have been found to have been edited in contravention of the terms of use. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 7:31 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services
On 14 April 2017 at 17:39, Gabriel Thullen gabriel@thullen.com wrote:
The damage has been done. Theverge.com claims to have done such a modification on Wikipedia, to quote them "as did we, in a test yesterday". We will probably see more of this.
Yes. This is why we need to respond in such a way as to deter companies from trying this ever again.
Cosying up to them is precisely the wrong response.
- d.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe