2 ms·
Why not just make the terms of service say something like "you agree not to edit the encyclopedia for money, and you agree not to pay anyone else to do so, etc.
by glesica 13y ago
Why not just make the terms of service say something like "you agree not to edit the encyclopedia for money, and you agree not to pay anyone else to do so, etc." and then start suing people? As a bonus, no one could claim ignorance once the lawsuits started flying, everyone in the PR industry would know about it. The courts seem intent on giving more and more credence to ToS, might as well use that for something good.
- swalling 13y agoThere are related terms in the current Terms of Use, namely that you may not edit "With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate" and that also disallowed is "Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive;"[1] So in other words, deliberate falsehoods or manipulation by PR people or paid agents that hide their affiliation with a company is already a ToU violation. 1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
- mjn 13y agoThat's true, although I think it would cause a huge controversy to sue someone over it (rather than just banning them). It implicates all sorts of questions that are already controversial in the free-culture community, like to what extent ToS should be legally enforceable as contracts. Even worse if the editor is from outside the U.S., and controversy over extraterritorial application of U.S. law gets implicated.