Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

mirror Linux Mint package repos?

Exciting update about development...

Jacob Rogers

7 Jan 2017 7 Jan '17

5:41 a.m.

Hi all, I want to share a few thoughts on the paid editing issue. First of all, we do have the ability to enforce our terms of use. If there are cases where you're encountering a severe problem with paid editing and community efforts are not able to solve it, please get in touch with us via legal(a)wikimedia.org and we can discuss how we can provide support depending on the details of the case. With apologies, I'm not able to discuss details of any specific cases here because we don't want to reveal information about ongoing or future investigations or legal actions. In general, I do want to say a few words about the role of legal tools in these kinds of cases. Legal actions are a blunt instrument: courts use the same solutions to every problem, and have not kept up with the speed of modern technology. So we are interested in helping to improve community systems and technological tools (like tools to help admins investigate and block problematic users) that can make it so that legal action isn't necessary in many cases. I also want to note that we've been working on a longer statement outlining some of our thoughts about our role in dealing with paid editing concerns and some ways the communities can effectively approach these issues as well. We plan to post this on-wiki soon. Lastly, let me say thank you to all the community members who help out with these issues. We really appreciate everyone who reports cases to us and helps us take action where we are able, such as reporting some job postings on third-party sites. Best, Jacob Rogers -- Jacob Rogers Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.

Show replies by date

Gnangarra

7 Jan 7 Jan

5:47 a.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Just thought, all the solutions have been directed at the people making money for providing the service has anyone tried contacting the companies paying for the service, if so what was the outcome? On 7 January 2017 at 13:41, Jacob Rogers <jrogers(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

Jytdog at Wikipedia

8:31 p.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Thanks for your note, Jacob. It is great to know that WMF is happy to help with specific on-Wiki issues, working from the ground up, as it were. Yes members of the community are constantly playing whack-a-mole to deal with specific incidents. The reason I asked the original question, is that from the point of view of myself and some other editors, the WMF could do a lot to address paid editing by acting where *only* it can - from the top down. Namely, taking efforts to prevent companies from using the Wikipedia name to advertise services that are performed in violation of the Terms of Use. That would go for both companies that provide editing services and companies that allow freelancers to connect with customers. With those companies freely (and often mockingly) advertising their services, the spigot is opened wide - they constantly get more customers and send people here to edit. I would like to know if legal is authorized to take action to cut that flow off from the top. To close the spigot. If legal is not authorized to take such action, I would like to know why. Is it that the board and management have not talked through this, or that they have talked through and decided not to do it? Thanks. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Jacob Rogers <jrogers(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

David Gerard

8:42 p.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

On 7 January 2017 at 20:31, Jytdog at Wikipedia <jytdogtemp1(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

With those companies freely (and often mockingly) advertising their services, the spigot is opened wide - they constantly get more customers and send people here to edit. I would like to know if legal is authorized to take action to cut that flow off from the top. To close the spigot.

Jytdog is not exaggerating here, by the way - this is literally what happens. I see cases of people editing using a certain username, you Google that username and you will literally see their webpage advertising their services as a Wikipedia article writer for your business. You ask them if they have a COI and they say "no". Posting the smoking gun evidence is a violation of the outing policy. I realise the extremely good reasons for our outing policies, but that doesn't make the flood of spam go away. We have an actual problem. - d.

Jytdog at Wikipedia

11:58 p.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Just want to note that in my OP I had linked to an ANI thread (now archived here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#Earflaps>) about the discovery of a long term paid editor; the same editors who found that, have found another -- this time the editor had 70K edits on en-wiki. ANI thread is here <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=758846199#Proposal_to_ban_FoCuSandLeArN_due_to_undisclosed_paid_editing>. They edited on behalf of Banc de Binary, Alcoa, and some other big players. It appears that this editor worked for wikipediawriters.com. Is WMF in discussions with that company, and companies like it, with regard to following the ToU? If not, why not? What if WMF started a list similar to Beall's list of Predatory Publishers, of companies that advertise editing WP for pay for which there is no evidence of them complying with the ToU? It would also be useful to list editors associated with the companies who have been blocked or banned by one or more WP communities (this would take some delicate work). Beside this sort of public list (which people who want to hire paid editors would probably appreciate being able to check), such companies could also be sent a letter informing them of the ToU and telling them to stop using the WP name until they start complying with the ToU - including the blocking/banning policies - and you could link that letter in the list. There are things the WMF could be doing that the community cannot. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <jytdogtemp1(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

James Heilman

8 Jan 8 Jan

4:09 a.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Undisclosed paid promotional editing is one of the biggest risks we face not only to the quality of our content but to our reputation. We need to do a more to address it. No company editing Wikipedia for pay should be allowed to use the Wikipedia logo or name IMO. I am not sure how much the law allows us to enforce though. Is "wikipediawriters" a trademark infringement? James On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <jytdogtemp1(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Just want to note that in my OP I had linked to an ANI thread (now archived here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/ IncidentArchive942#Earflaps>) about the discovery of a long term paid editor; the same editors who found that, have found another -- this time the editor had 70K edits on en-wiki. ANI thread is here <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=758846199# Proposal_to_ban_FoCuSandLeArN_due_to_undisclosed_paid_editing>. They edited on behalf of Banc de Binary, Alcoa, and some other big players. It appears that this editor worked for wikipediawriters.com. Is WMF in discussions with that company, and companies like it, with regard to following the ToU? If not, why not? What if WMF started a list similar to Beall's list of Predatory Publishers, of companies that advertise editing WP for pay for which there is no evidence of them complying with the ToU? It would also be useful to list editors associated with the companies who have been blocked or banned by one or more WP communities (this would take some delicate work). Beside this sort of public list (which people who want to hire paid editors would probably appreciate being able to check), such companies could also be sent a letter informing them of the ToU and telling them to stop using the WP name until they start complying with the ToU - including the blocking/banning policies - and you could link that letter in the list. There are things the WMF could be doing that the community cannot. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <jytdogtemp1(a)gmail.com

wrote: > Thanks for your note, Jacob.

> It is great to know that WMF is happy to help with specific on-Wiki > issues, working from the ground up, as it were. Yes members of the > community are constantly playing whack-a-mole to deal with specific > incidents.

> The reason I asked the original question, is that from the point of view > of myself and some other editors, the WMF could do a lot to address paid > editing by acting where *only* it can - from the top down. Namely, > taking efforts to prevent companies from using the Wikipedia name to > advertise services that are performed in violation of the Terms of Use. > That would go for both companies that provide editing services and > companies that allow freelancers to connect with customers.

> With those companies freely (and often mockingly) advertising their > services, the spigot is opened wide - they constantly get more customers > and send people here to edit. I would like to know if legal is > authorized to take action to cut that flow off from the top. To close the > spigot.

> If legal is not authorized to take such action, I would like to know why. > Is it that the board and management have not talked through this, or that > they have talked through and decided not to do it?

> Thanks.

> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Jacob Rogers <jrogers(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote:

>> Hi all, >> >> I want to share a few thoughts on the paid editing issue. First of all, we

> do have the ability to enforce our terms of use. If there are cases

where

> you're encountering a severe problem with paid editing and community > efforts are not able to solve it, please get in touch with us via > legal(a)wikimedia.org and we can discuss how we can provide support > depending > on the details of the case. With apologies, I'm not able to discuss > details > of any specific cases here because we don't want to reveal information > about ongoing or future investigations or legal actions. > > In general, I do want to say a few words about the role of legal tools

> these kinds of cases. Legal actions are a blunt instrument: courts use

the

> same solutions to every problem, and have not kept up with the speed of > modern technology. So we are interested in helping to improve community > systems and technological tools (like tools to help admins investigate

and

> block problematic users) that can make it so that legal action isn't > necessary in many cases. > > I also want to note that we've been working on a longer statement > outlining > some of our thoughts about our role in dealing with paid editing

concerns

> and some ways the communities can effectively approach these issues as > well. We plan to post this on-wiki soon. > > Lastly, let me say thank you to all the community members who help out > with > these issues. We really appreciate everyone who reports cases to us and > helps us take action where we are able, such as reporting some job > postings > on third-party sites. > > Best, > Jacob Rogers > > -- > > Jacob Rogers > Legal Counsel > Wikimedia Foundation > > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged > information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal

advice >> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff >> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please >> see >> our legal disclaimer >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

Charles M. Roslof

10 Jan 10 Jan

5:59 p.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

We regularly take action against websites offering Wikipedia paid editing services when they use the Wikipedia puzzle globe or other Wikimedia trademarks <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks>[1] in a way that could suggest to visitors that their services are offered or sanctioned by Wikipedia. We receive reports of potential trademark infringement, primarily through the trademark abuse form <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contact/licenseabuse>[2] and emails to legal-tm-vio(a)wikimedia.org. We evaluate each report and take action as appropriate. If it is a case of parody or nominative use <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#policy-nominativeuse>[3], we may send an email asking them to include a notice that they are unaffiliated with Wikipedia and, if, necessary, to include proper Creative Commons attribution. If it is a case of actual infringement that could confuse the public, we contact them to ask that they remove the marks from their websites. In our cease-and-desist messages to paid editing websites, we remind them of the terms of use disclosure requirements. In some cases of trademark infringement, we can also file complaints under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy>[4] seeking to cancel or claim their domain name registrations. Best, Charles M. Roslof [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contact/licenseabuse [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy#policy-nominativeuse [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy == Charles M. Roslof Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation croslof(a)wikimedia.org (415) 839-6885 NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 8:09 PM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

wrote:

Just want to note that in my OP I had linked to an ANI thread (now

archived

here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/ IncidentArchive942#Earflaps>) about the discovery of a long term paid editor; the same editors who

found

that, have found another -- this time the editor had 70K edits on

en-wiki. > ANI thread is here > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: > Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=758846199# > Proposal_to_ban_FoCuSandLeArN_due_to_undisclosed_paid_editing>. > They edited on behalf of Banc de Binary, Alcoa, and some other big > players. It appears that this editor worked for wikipediawriters.com.

> Is WMF in discussions with that company, and companies like it, with regard > to following the ToU? If not, why not?

> What if WMF started a list similar to Beall's list of Predatory Publishers,

of companies that advertise editing WP for pay for which there is no evidence of them complying with the ToU? It would also be useful to list editors associated with the companies who have been blocked or banned by one or more WP communities (this would take some delicate work).

Beside

this sort of public list (which people who want to hire paid editors

would

probably appreciate being able to check), such companies could also be

sent > a letter informing them of the ToU and telling them to stop using the WP > name until they start complying with the ToU - including the > blocking/banning policies - and you could link that letter in the list.

> There are things the WMF could be doing that the community cannot.

> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia < jytdogtemp1(a)gmail.com >

> wrote:

> > Thanks for your note, Jacob. >

> > It is great to know that WMF is happy to help with specific on-Wiki > > issues, working from the ground up, as it were. Yes members of the > > community are constantly playing whack-a-mole to deal with specific > > incidents. >

> > The reason I asked the original question, is that from the point of view

> of myself and some other editors, the WMF could do a lot to address

paid > > editing by acting where *only* it can - from the top down. Namely, > > taking efforts to prevent companies from using the Wikipedia name to > > advertise services that are performed in violation of the Terms of Use. > > That would go for both companies that provide editing services and > > companies that allow freelancers to connect with customers. >

> > With those companies freely (and often mockingly) advertising their > > services, the spigot is opened wide - they constantly get more customers > > and send people here to edit. I would like to know if legal is > > authorized to take action to cut that flow off from the top. To close > the > > spigot. >

> > If legal is not authorized to take such action, I would like to know why.

> Is it that the board and management have not talked through this, or

that > > they have talked through and decided not to do it? >

> > Thanks. >

> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Jacob Rogers <jrogers(a)wikimedia.org> > > wrote: >

> >> Hi all, > >> > >> I want to share a few thoughts on the paid editing issue. First of all,

> do have the ability to enforce our terms of use. If there are cases

where

> these kinds of cases. Legal actions are a blunt instrument: courts use

the >> same solutions to every problem, and have not kept up with the speed

>> modern technology. So we are interested in helping to improve

community

> systems and technological tools (like tools to help admins investigate

and

concerns >> and some ways the communities can effectively approach these issues as >> well. We plan to post this on-wiki soon. >> >> Lastly, let me say thank you to all the community members who help out >> with >> these issues. We really appreciate everyone who reports cases to us

and

>> helps us take action where we are able, such as reporting some job >> postings >> on third-party sites. >> >> Best, >> Jacob Rogers >> >> -- >> >> Jacob Rogers >> Legal Counsel >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged >> information in it. If you have received this message by accident,

please

> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal

advice >> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff >> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means,

please

>> see >> our legal disclaimer >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik

>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >

> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pine W

13 Jan 13 Jan

10:20 p.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Hi Jacob, Can we get an ETA on the longer statement? Pine On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Jacob Rogers <jrogers(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

David Goodman

14 Jan 14 Jan

1:34 a.m.

New subject: Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Charles, Very few paid editors who currently advertise use the trademarks; they do say that they will write or help write articles in Wikipedia , and that is a true statement. They will sometimes say they are authorized to do so, or that their work is legitimate, which is false, but that does not seem to be a violation of the trademark. What action are you prepared to take against those who violate the paid editing provision of the TOU, without violating the trademark? Have there been any such cases where you have even written a cease and desist letter except for Morning227? (If you need to reply privately, I'm a member of enWP arbcom and have signed the relevant nondisclosure statements). On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi Jacob, Can we get an ETA on the longer statement? Pine On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Jacob Rogers <jrogers(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi all, I want to share a few thoughts on the paid editing issue. First of all,

do have the ability to enforce our terms of use. If there are cases where you're encountering a severe problem with paid editing and community efforts are not able to solve it, please get in touch with us via legal(a)wikimedia.org and we can discuss how we can provide support depending on the details of the case. With apologies, I'm not able to discuss

details

of any specific cases here because we don't want to reveal information about ongoing or future investigations or legal actions. In general, I do want to say a few words about the role of legal tools in these kinds of cases. Legal actions are a blunt instrument: courts use

the

same solutions to every problem, and have not kept up with the speed of modern technology. So we are interested in helping to improve community systems and technological tools (like tools to help admins investigate

and

block problematic users) that can make it so that legal action isn't necessary in many cases. I also want to note that we've been working on a longer statement

outlining

some of our thoughts about our role in dealing with paid editing concerns and some ways the communities can effectively approach these issues as well. We plan to post this on-wiki soon. Lastly, let me say thank you to all the community members who help out

with

these issues. We really appreciate everyone who reports cases to us and helps us take action where we are able, such as reporting some job

postings

on third-party sites. Best, Jacob Rogers -- Jacob Rogers Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal

advice

to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please

see

our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

2686

days inactive

2693

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

8 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

Charles M. Roslof
David Gerard
David Goodman
Gnangarra
Jacob Rogers
James Heilman
Jytdog at Wikipedia
Pine W