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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>