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" <[email protected]> To: "English Wikipedia" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] wrote: >> In a message dated 4/16/2009 2:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
