Content deleted Content added
Giorgio-1970 (talk | contribs) Undid revision 414244390 by Jimbo Wales (talk) |
|||
Line 58:
::In this example we're really talking about two different things. The "vandalism" aspect wouldn't be a crime, however when one breaks wikipedia rules on vandalism, one could also break real laws like libel, defamation etc.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::In the legal sense, vandalism is generally interpreted as willful damage to the value of real property (i.e. damage to a material good that incurs some cost for repair or replacement). Internet sites are not 'real property' in the legal sense, and damage to them incurs negligible repair/replacement costs, so it's doubtful any court would accept a vandalism charge as valid. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Vandalism has to do with damages, and as others have suggested, fixing vandalism has an almost trivial cost. Vandalism which is also libel or defamation is not a crime because it's vandalism, but because it's libel or defamation, as suggested above. Ludwigs' point is accurate on Wikipedia, but vandalizing (hacking) a commercial site could indeed lead to monetary losses, since those sites
== [[Talk:Main_Page#Featured_sounds_vote]] ==
| |||