[WikiEN-l] Mywikipediaspace

Mon Oct 2 14:10:04 UTC 2006

Swapping your points around to deal with them in a logical order:

On 10/2/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> (My point is not that densely-cribbed TOS agreements are
> wonderful or that we should have one, but merely that, depending
> on your enforcement model, they can have value in making your
> enforcements stick.)

A TOS doesn't necessarily have to be dense. Something which conveys
the five pillars (although probably not IAR, here!), with additions
such as something to cover commercial abuse. The simpler the language
the less contestable by problem users and the less
confusing/tedious/odious for good users.

> Well, realistically, there is another potential beneficial side
> effect of "terms of service" agreements like that, even if no one
> has read them, which is that they can -- maybe -- make it easier
> to deal with idiots after they've been discovered.

It might also be easier to deal with people who are astroturfing when
we can say in black-and-white terms that they are breaching our TOS,
rather than saying there was a rough consensus that some guideline
applied in this case, especially since (I would think) breaching a TOS
is more likely to generate negative attention or publicity.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com