Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/10/8 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: > >> If you are in the US and you blog and are paid or receive oher >> commercial benefits for it, the FTC requires you to reveal the >> relationship: >> >> http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/10/new-ftc-federal-trade-commission-guidelines-disclose-product-review-blogola-payola-favorable-blog-comments-more-transparency.html?EXTKEY=KEYCODE=OTC-ConsumeristRSS >> >> Now, would this cover Wikipedia edits? >> > > Make sure you read this sentence: > > "The guides, last updated in 1980, are administrative interpretations > of the law aimed at helping advertisers comply with the Federal Trade > Commission Act, and they’re not binding law themselves." > > If you want to try and interpret the guides, make sure you do so with > that fact in mind. > Hmmm, I doubt Wikipedia takes people who spam it to court anyway. But this idea may may some mileage in it. "We not like" backed up with "FTC not like" sounds like a more powerful argument. Something the paymasters might understand, not reading further than "Federal".
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l