Hello
I am currently reading the Terms of Service of Myspace. It is quite interesting. Remember, this is a social networking site, not an encyclopedia/dictionary/textbook/library/etc. As such, one would think that they would be a tad more lax than us. Not so. Note that I not suggesting that these policies are followed or that the millions of Myspace users have actually read them. Nevertheless, it is there in writing. People who sign up agree to this. Perhaps we can learn from them.
Rule 5: Non-commercial Use by Members. The MySpace Services are for the personal use of Members only and may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by MySpace.com. Illegal and/or unauthorized use of the MySpace Services, including collecting usernames and/or email addresses of Members by electronic or other means for the purpose of sending unsolicited email or unauthorized framing of or linking to the MySpace Website is prohibited. Commercial advertisements, affiliate links, and other forms of solicitation may be removed from Member profiles without notice and may result in termination of Membership privileges. Appropriate legal action will be taken for any illegal or unauthorized use of the MySpace Services.
Forbidden thing 11 is:
displaying an advertisement on your profile, or accepting payment or anything of value from a third person in exchange for your performing any commercial activity on or through the MySpace Services on behalf of that person, such as placing commercial content on your profile, posting blogs or bulletins with a commercial purpose, selecting a profile with a commercial purpose as one of your "Top 8" friends, or sending private messages with a commercial purpose;
As I said, I sincerely doubt most (any) Myspace members have read the Terms of Service, I can assure you that they are far more substantial than our own Terms of Service. Personally, I hope that the Board rectifies this.
Danny
--- daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I am currently reading the Terms of Service of Myspace. It is quite interesting. Remember, this is a social networking site, not an encyclopedia/dictionary/textbook/library/etc. As such, one would think that they would be a tad more lax than us. Not so. Note that I not suggesting that
Legally, that protects them. In reality, they are roughly comparable to Wikipedia's user talk pages - if you imagine the admins not banning people that used them to promote wealth scams, Web cams, any other kind of porn you can imagine, bands, etc. etc. etc.
these policies are followed or that the millions of Myspace users have actually read them.
As someone who actually uses and interacts with people on myspace, I can tell you that nothing is followed unless it is enforced, and little if anything is enforced.
Nevertheless, it is there in writing. People who sign up agree to this. Perhaps we can learn from them.
Definitely not, unless you're looking to protect yourself legally. E.g., from being sued for having a 60 year old pedophile use Wikipedia to meet, etc. a non-adult or from being sued for some investment or gambling con that used your site.
All the "commercial" stuff supposedly restricted is actively employed. Start here as just 1 example: http://www.myspace.com/gdiwealth
In summary, the terms of service alone have no impact, so don't expect them to fix any content issues. The best you can hope for is that some corporations and PR firms that have lawyers reading and taking terms seriously will ease up on the claims they make and eliminate any links that go directly to sale sites.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
As I said, I sincerely doubt most (any) Myspace members have read the Terms of Service, I can assure you that they are far more substantial than our own Terms of Service. Personally, I hope that the Board rectifies this.
My own €0.02 is that we should steer away from Byzantine and restrictive 'terms of service' for contributors as much as possible. Part of the point of Wikipedia is, as ever, that 'anyone can edit' and I'm wary of things that may discourage people from doing that.
I also wonder if more expansive terms of service would actually do anything to deal with the problem here (which I presume is that of commercial organisations using Wikipedia for what amounts to advertising). If, as you surmise, few users will read them, why bother creating them? Advertising is already covered by Wikipedia policy.
Cheers,
N.
On 02/10/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
My own €0.02 is that we should steer away from Byzantine and restrictive 'terms of service' for contributors as much as possible. Part of the point of Wikipedia is, as ever, that 'anyone can edit' and I'm wary of things that may discourage people from doing that. I also wonder if more expansive terms of service would actually do anything to deal with the problem here (which I presume is that of commercial organisations using Wikipedia for what amounts to advertising). If, as you surmise, few users will read them, why bother creating them? Advertising is already covered by Wikipedia policy.
Yes. What is the point of such a rule in a TOS? It won't stop deliberate violation. So how is it planned to enforce it?
"Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit if they click OK to a multi-page contract of adhesion of the sort no-one ever reads anyway."
- d.
On 02/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. What is the point of such a rule in a TOS? It won't stop deliberate violation. So how is it planned to enforce it? "Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit if they click OK to a multi-page contract of adhesion of the sort no-one ever reads anyway."
To expand on this:
What it appears Danny would like is a rule that people would have to agree to such that they would behave. But you can't legislate against misunderstanding or malice. What effective penalty can we apply? We can't even stop people editing if they really want to.
Adding a new rule, or a TOS or whatever, won't change malicious behaviour a dot, and will hamper the good editors. No rules can ensure quality, no rules can ensure neutrality, no rules can prevent cluelessness and no rules can prevent malice.
The solution to bad behaviour is as unlikely to be "let's add LOTS of new rules" as it is to be "let's add a new rule" when the problem is editors who don't care about existing rules.
- d.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 07:55, David Gerard wrote:
On 02/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. What is the point of such a rule in a TOS? It won't stop deliberate violation. So how is it planned to enforce it? "Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit if they click OK to a multi-page contract of adhesion of the sort no-one ever reads anyway."
To expand on this:
What it appears Danny would like is a rule that people would have to agree to such that they would behave. But you can't legislate against misunderstanding or malice. What effective penalty can we apply? We can't even stop people editing if they really want to.
Adding a new rule, or a TOS or whatever, won't change malicious behaviour a dot, and will hamper the good editors. No rules can ensure quality, no rules can ensure neutrality, no rules can prevent cluelessness and no rules can prevent malice.
The solution to bad behaviour is as unlikely to be "let's add LOTS of new rules" as it is to be "let's add a new rule" when the problem is editors who don't care about existing rules.
We should be making at easy as possible for good editors to take part and learn how things work. This includes making it as easy as possible to get started.
David Gerard wrote:
Yes. What is the point of such a rule in a TOS? It won't stop deliberate violation. So how is it planned to enforce it?
What it appears Danny would like is a rule that people would have to agree to such that they would behave. But you can't legislate against misunderstanding or malice. What effective penalty can we apply?
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.
If you're merely "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit", and you ban or severely sanction someone, he may then engage you in a 3-month-long harangue and argument about how he had every right to do what he did and you had no right to ban him for it. But if you can whip out the densely-cribbed TOS agreement and point at subparagraph VII.6.b.iv which specifically prohibits (say) adding commercial external links, then even if the miscreant had never read this, he will (so the theory goes) realize that he could/should have, and will stalk off, duly chastised. It might or might not make a difference if there's also a top-level paragraph II.3 which specifically states that we can ban you for violating any of the rules in section VII.
(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.)
On 10/2/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
If you're merely "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit", and you ban or severely sanction someone, he may then engage you in a 3-month-long harangue and argument about how he had every right to do what he did and you had no right to ban him for it. But if you can whip out the densely-cribbed TOS agreement and point at subparagraph VII.6.b.iv which specifically prohibits (say) adding commercial external links, then even if the miscreant had never read this, he will (so the theory goes) realize that he could/should have, and will stalk off, duly chastised.
I doubt anyone inclined to engage in a 3-month-long harangue would care what subparagraph VII.6.b.iv says.
Swapping your points around to deal with them in a logical order:
On 10/2/06, Steve Summit scs@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.
On 10/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What it appears Danny would like is a rule that people would have to agree to such that they would behave.
I don't know if thats what danny was advocating, but it sounds good to me.
But you can't legislate against misunderstanding or malice. What effective penalty can we apply? We can't even stop people editing if they really want to.
You are correct that there are some bad people that we can't stop. But everyone that causes us problems isn't a judgement proof 14 year old kid jumping coffee shops...
The reality is that a nontrivial number of our problem causers are corporations which don't have the sort of immunity which makes the TOS irrelevant.
It would be really nice that on the third time some foolish advertising company calls us up threatening to sue because we deleted their drivel that we can turn around and say "No, we're going to sue you..." :)
And really, if we don't make it clear to all that we respect ourselves... we can't expect other people to respect us.
It would be hard to actually prevent people spraypainting ads on the side of a public library, and yet incidents of people doing that are unheard of...
[snip]
The solution to bad behaviour is as unlikely to be "let's add LOTS of new rules" as it is to be "let's add a new rule" when the problem is editors who don't care about existing rules.
There is no one solution, there are only improvements.
On 02/10/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But you can't legislate against misunderstanding or malice. What effective penalty can we apply? We can't even stop people editing if they really want to.
You are correct that there are some bad people that we can't stop. But everyone that causes us problems isn't a judgement proof 14 year old kid jumping coffee shops... The reality is that a nontrivial number of our problem causers are corporations which don't have the sort of immunity which makes the TOS irrelevant. It would be really nice that on the third time some foolish advertising company calls us up threatening to sue because we deleted their drivel that we can turn around and say "No, we're going to sue you..." :)
... hmm.
Hmm. I'm liking this idea.
...
(The liking I'm getting for it is that it's fatally clever. That's a bad sign. But hmmm.)
- d.
On 10/2/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What it appears Danny would like is a rule that people would have to agree to such that they would behave.
I don't know if thats what danny was advocating, but it sounds good to me.
But you can't legislate against misunderstanding or malice. What effective penalty can we apply? We can't even stop people editing if they really want to.
You are correct that there are some bad people that we can't stop. But everyone that causes us problems isn't a judgement proof 14 year old kid jumping coffee shops...
The reality is that a nontrivial number of our problem causers are corporations which don't have the sort of immunity which makes the TOS irrelevant.
It would be really nice that on the third time some foolish advertising company calls us up threatening to sue because we deleted their drivel that we can turn around and say "No, we're going to sue you..." :)
Do you know a lawyer who'd be willing to take this on contingency? Because that's the only way the Foundation would be able to afford a lawsuit.
Mark Wagner-2 wrote:
On 10/2/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
It would be really nice that on the third time some foolish advertising company calls us up threatening to sue because we deleted their drivel that we can turn around and say "No, we're going to sue you..." :)
Do you know a lawyer who'd be willing to take this on contingency? Because that's the only way the Foundation would be able to afford a lawsuit.
Erm...?
Don't we employ a lawyer? I thought that was what Brad was here for...
HTH HAND
On 10/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. What is the point of such a rule in a TOS? It won't stop deliberate violation. So how is it planned to enforce it?
Right now we're hardly even telling advertisers no.
There are many organizations with reputations and pocketbooks that they need to protect... the first step in keeping their behavior acceptable is giving them clear direction.
You're right, we can't stop bad people from being bad, but that doesn't mean that we can't keep employ measures to encourage the honest people to stay honest.
Or are you also opposed to doors that lock? ... with the exception of high security doors, a locked door actually does fairly little to prevent a determined attacker from getting inside, and yet locked doors have been demonstrated over and over again to be effective.
Or another way of looking at it: One of the more clearly stated arguments against us running advertising on Wikipedia ourselves is the potential creation of bias, or at least the creation of the appearance of bias. It strikes me as odd that people will scream so loudly against the introduction of advertising which would bring us lots of useful money without a definite introduction of bias, and yet folks are not willing to take maximal measures against the abuse of Wikipedia as an astroturfed advertising medium... when the latter does create a clear bias in our content.
On 10/2/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
You're right, we can't stop bad people from being bad, but that doesn't mean that we can't keep employ measures to encourage the honest people to stay honest.
Or are you also opposed to doors that lock? ... with the exception of high security doors, a locked door actually does fairly little to prevent a determined attacker from getting inside, and yet locked doors have been demonstrated over and over again to be effective.
Or another way of looking at it: One of the more clearly stated arguments against us running advertising on Wikipedia ourselves is the potential creation of bias, or at least the creation of the appearance of bias. It strikes me as odd that people will scream so loudly against the introduction of advertising which would bring us lots of useful money without a definite introduction of bias, and yet folks are not willing to take maximal measures against the abuse of Wikipedia as an astroturfed advertising medium... when the latter does create a clear bias in our content.
Sorry if I *do* contradict you. You are one of the most reasonable people on wikipedia, so I would hope that you would take my contradiction of what you said above in the same spirit. I wish to reason with the unreasonable statements in the paragraph above.
Advertisements are *not* useful money. They detract from our mission, and the value that is added to our content by people who do not feel advertisements are useful. I *will* argue the point if needed. But I think I have argued that already in another place.
On 10/2/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Sorry if I *do* contradict you. You are one of the most reasonable people on wikipedia, so I would hope that you would take my contradiction of what you said above in the same spirit. I wish to reason with the unreasonable statements in the paragraph above.
Advertisements are *not* useful money. They detract from our mission, and the value that is added to our content by people who do not feel advertisements are useful. I *will* argue the point if needed. But I think I have argued that already in another place.
I did not intend to advocate accepting advertising but rather make the point that so many of us are so aggressive at rejecting paid advertising, which is a subject that reasonable people can disagree on, ... and that we should be no less aggressive in our rejection of the abuse of our service for advertising.
No matter what arguments can be made FOR us running ads, none apply to turning a blind eye to the abuse of our service. ... and yet almost all of the arguments against running ads apply to tolerating the inclusion of advertising.
I would argue that we are already fairly intolerant of advertising, at least when a Wikipedian sees it... but until we ensure that we can back up our good community practices with legal recourse against repeated offenders it can still be easily argued that we are fairly tolerant.
On 10/2/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
You're right, we can't stop bad people from being bad, but that doesn't mean that we can't keep employ measures to encourage the honest people to stay honest.
Or are you also opposed to doors that lock? ... with the exception of high security doors, a locked door actually does fairly little to prevent a determined attacker from getting inside, and yet locked doors have been demonstrated over and over again to be effective.
This isn't a door lock. It's a tiny little sign above the door which says "don't break in".
Or another way of looking at it: One of the more clearly stated arguments against us running advertising on Wikipedia ourselves is the potential creation of bias, or at least the creation of the appearance of bias. It strikes me as odd that people will scream so loudly against the introduction of advertising which would bring us lots of useful money without a definite introduction of bias, and yet folks are not willing to take maximal measures against the abuse of Wikipedia as an astroturfed advertising medium... when the latter does create a clear bias in our content.
Wikipedia runs perfectly fine without advertising, though. To "take maximal measures" against others using Wikipedia for advertising would require virtually shutting down the wiki. It also has nothing to do with the current proposal, which is to take a measure which will, it's being argued, accomplish nothing at all.
All that said, I really don't care that much about the terms of service, so long as it's not phrased horribly obscenely. One thing I think would be horribly obscene is to say that Wikipedia Services "are for the personal use of Members only and may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by [the Wikimedia Foundation]". Of course, even then, it's not like anyone reads or cares about terms of service.
Anthony
On 10/1/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
As I said, I sincerely doubt most (any) Myspace members have read the Terms of Service, I can assure you that they are far more substantial than our own Terms of Service. Personally, I hope that the Board rectifies this.
Terms of Service are written by corporate lawyers who are afraid they might not be able to find their underwear sometime in the future. They're worthless for anything but the covering of asses.