[WikiEN-l] Vandalism and Conservapedia

[Oldak Quill]

On 15/03/07, Guettarda <guettarda at 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 (oldakquill at gmail.com)