A copy of the proposed additional language:
---
Paid contributions without disclosure
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including
misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure
compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer,
client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia
Projects for which you receive compensation. You must make that disclosure
in at least one of the following:
* a statement on your user page,
* a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
* a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies, such as those
addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or
require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our
background note on disclosure of paid contributions
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#
paidtoufaq>.
---
And a snippet from the Meta-Wiki page:
---
Our Terms of Use already prohibit engaging in deceptive activities,
including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To
ensure compliance with these provisions, this amendment provides specific
minimum disclosure requirements for paid contributions on the Wikimedia
Projects.
---
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value
does this even serve
the movement? I can't understand from the background information why
there is the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through
a Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when
local policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place,
perhaps it has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects
even face the same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.)
My reaction was roughly the same as yours regarding who's proposing this
change. It's curious that the Wikimedia Foundation legal team wants to
propose this as a Terms of Use change rather than, say, creating or
clarifying a Wikimedia Foundation employee policy. This is already being
referred to as the Stierch amendment, of course.
MZMcBride