On 15/03/07, Guettarda <guettarda(a)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.