[edit] 1. Make vandals accountable in the real world
People that vandalise Wikipedia habitually or use automated vandalbots to do the same, continue to erode at the hard work of thousands, creating further work for hundreds more. Some people in the public eye and therefore with widespread influence have (allegedly) actively encouraged such vandalism and contributed to the problem in a way that most users are unable.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 of the UK states that a person is guilty of an offence if he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer with intent to prevent or hinder access to any data held in any computer or to impair the reliability of any such data in the knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised. The Cybercrime Act 2001 of the Commonwealth of Australia states that a person is guilty of an offence if the person cause any unauthorised modification of data held in a computer. Naturally, both of these laws cover the incitement of commiting and such act.
The keyword is 'unauthorised'. The missing link between a vandal's actions and their accountability in real life is that of authorisation; if you check out |Jimbo's statement of principles, he already states that the community needs protection against real vandals. My proposal thus comprises that Jimbo's wishes are ratified and that the phrase "Vandalism of Wikipedia is forbidden" or words to that effect are added alongside the current warnings: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
If this can be done, then after an initial warning of offenders (remember, I'm still talking about operators of vandal bots and certain television presenters) to satisfy the requirement for knowledge that the modification is unauthorised, the offender must cease and desist or will be reported to the appropriate authorities.
According to my understanding, this strategy could not be applied to edits coming from within the Unite States. I am unaware of the content of analagous laws of any other countries.
Please help develop this proposal by suggesting flaws, improvements, countries in which the law is compatible with the UK and AU laws and countries in which it is not.
[edit] 2. Giving detention to school-based vandals
It has been surmised that a considerable quantity of vandalism arises from misuse by school children who are less inclined to appreciate the importance of the project. Since these edits are sometimes traced via their fixed IP addresses to specific schools, I suggest that these schools are contacted with details of the vandalism that has arisen from their IP, and perhaps a selection of their useful edits, if any exist.
They could hold a school assembly on the subject of Wikipedia (they may even be thankful for the idea - I've sat through separate assemblies whose main topic consisted of a watch, a glass of water and a two pound coin where the teacher must have been really scraping the barrel!), condoning constructive edits and condeming damaging ones (ideally with threat of detention). If a response is asked for and received, it might be possible to keep a list of Wikipedia-friendly schools so that further vandalism from that IP address is dealt with differently.
Please help develop this proposal by suggesting flaws and improvements and other useful information.
|
