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-boun...@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 <gabr...@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to