Hello all,
We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Please join the discussion on the talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but different concepts). My writing (and disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.
Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes. All failures to disclose affiliation are "deceptive" according to the language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but self-interested comment on a talk page (like "Actually, the library has 4 branches, not 3"). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to "applicable law"(!) As if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced community policies are already in place on major projects.
You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those types of desirable contributions that "In fact, Wikipedians in Residence usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and disclosure." I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use.
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.) I don't question that conflicts of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems more like an overreach than any kind of solution.
Dominic
(Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.)
On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all,
We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Please join the discussion on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
When we were discussing an update to the COI/paid editing page on English Wikipedia a few months ago, I posted a set of hypothetical (but not all that hypothetical) situations to help guide the discussion. I've copied and updated that question set and posted it to the talkpage of the meta discussion, in the hopes that it might be useful there too in ensuring that any proposal addresses real situations that arise in a sensible way.
Link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Regards, Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdevitd@gmail.comwrote:
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but different concepts). My writing (and disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.
Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes. All failures to disclose affiliation are "deceptive" according to the language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but self-interested comment on a talk page (like "Actually, the library has 4 branches, not 3"). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to "applicable law"(!) As if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced community policies are already in place on major projects.
You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those types of desirable contributions that "In fact, Wikipedians in Residence usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and disclosure." I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use.
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.) I don't question that conflicts of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems more like an overreach than any kind of solution.
Dominic
(Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.)
On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all,
We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the
Wikimedia
Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is
currently
available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Please join the discussion on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a
lawyer
for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
Hi all,
A few notes from my own perspective:
1) I'm glad to see this lively debate! I hope the right solution comes out of it and is iron-clad against contingencies, insofar as possible :)
2) I don't want to see the projects used and misused as a platform to achieve goals other than our mission of sharing free knowledge -- and, as a part of that, I want to discourage contributions to articles that have an end goal other than making those articles better according to objective standards (and, of course, encourage contributions that do have the end goal of making articles better). Though I haven't checked with legal, I don't think that's a controversial statement :)
*How* we discourage contributions that don't fit with our own goals is the question -- policy changes Wikimedia-wide, project-wide, something else? This is a proposal using one of the legal tools in our toolbox, the ToU, which is one of the very few Wikimedia-wide policies that can address contribution standards and is also one of the very few tools that is recognized as legally valid by outside parties (unlike for instance our internal policies like NPOV, which are just that, editorial policies).
3) I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.
4) I'm glad to see Dominic weigh in with some issues from a GLAM perspective. Of course I personally am interested in GLAM issues, but I also think we collectively need to grapple with how to make the projects friendlier towards all kinds of people with things to share, including but not exclusively GLAMs and educators.
For my part, I would love to see a world where contributing to Wikipedia was seen as a normal part of business for educational and cultural institutions and the people who work there; I think that would be a win for all of us, including the GLAMS. How to do that so we also preserve our neutrality and values is the challenge facing us right now: and we need to figure out specific things, like how we balance disclosure versus anonymity for these contributors, and how we distinguish good motivations from cluelessness or COI. I don't have a good answer for this personally, though I have lots of thoughts (I've worked with plenty of researchers who are in fact trying to work on Wikipedia during their paid time. And bear in mind that for academics like professors, there's often no real line between "on the clock" and "off the clock" -- you do work relating to your job all the time).
Disclosure: I myself contribute hours and hours of work to Wikimedia during my day job, including writing this email, because I've made the case to my employer that my contributions to WMF as a trustee and volunteer can be seen as a professional obligation, just like helping out with a library association would be. That does not include my actual editing of Wikipedia, which I do with my volunteer hat on and in my free time. But let's face it: the lines are often blurry. For instance, I don't think my edits to engineering articles are a COI simply because I also work as an engineering librarian. But I do recognize that there are lots of different cases, ranging from that kind of mild overlap of day-job interest and Wikipedia work; to a researcher making an edit on a subject they study and (unknowingly or knowingly) over-representing their own work in the references; to someone making an edit to a company article to make it more favorable because they were paid by the company to do so. So, having clarity when we talk about these issues about what kind of cases we have in mind is important.
best, -- Phoebe
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 20:16:
- I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.
Please remember this is a description of the reality on en:wp. The reality looks very different on other version.
On svwp we are a group of a few hundred active contributes where paid editors and volunteers have a fruitful cooperation to create valuable and neutral articles. When we have discussed this proposal on our Village Pump we think it would be good to have it as a guideline and loose recommendation but if it would become mandatory we believe it would actually hurt our community and work. We are not bigger than it is possible for me alone to inspect all new articles from nonwikipedians 24/7, and react appropriate to different problems in the articles, and recognizing patterns of "strange" edits, and others are able to do the same for changes in articles
So please let each project decide on how to tackle the COi issue by themselves, and encourage exchange on best practices in the area. But also make sure No mandatory restrictions on all projects on contributers like this that would seriously harm the work in several projects
Andes
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU, something like "The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being paid to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable policy on each project where said users contribute."? Might that be a solution to establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding local intentions?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU, something like "The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being paid to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable policy on each project where said users contribute."? Might that be a solution to establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding local intentions?
I tried to answer this on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Hope that clarifies a bit, given the relevant history.
Luis
P.S. We're replying to things on meta, since that is where the banners are directing people to go, and because it helps keep a history of the conversation in one place.
Hi everyone,
This email is also available on meta : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Over the last few hours people asked me to re-share my mail from January regarding paid editing and to even elaborate on it : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/069717.html
I won't elaborate on that.
This amendment is all for show. This is the kind of amendment that is not enforceable. It's only use is that some board of trustees will be able to get in front of the press and vigorously claim "Paid editing is bad!".
Will it prevent people to edit without disclosing anything? No.
Will it encourage companies to embrace our values and improve articles in fields they're experts in? No.
Will it prevent biased volunteers to edit? No.
So if we look at what our main issues are (increasing the number of editors, increasing quality) I don't see any way where this amendment will help us in any of this cases. And this is an issue we've had for 7 to 9 years, our projects didn't collapse. I'm really not sure why it is needed to have such amendment now.
So, I don't care if this amendment is approved in the end, or not, as it will be useless and non-enforceable. Instead I'll keep on working with other people on proposing real solutions.
Though I do have a quick question for the legal team, is it ok for a hosting organization to enforce rules that have an editorial inpact on the services it hosts? I mean, lawyers have been trying for years to sue Wikimedia organizations and prove that WMF has some level of editorial control over Wikipedia. If WMF is the one deciding how a specific set of editors must behave when editing, couldn't they use that to prove that WMF does, indeend, have some editorial power? Much alike an editor-in-chief chooses who's published in its paper and how they're credited. Best,
Christophe
Hoi, When people make information available that fits in the notability requirements of Wikidata and, when the information is factually correct, then I do not think that anyone really cares if the person uploading it is gets paid for it or not.
Please explain to me why I should care.
As it is the one thing that Wikidata lacks is data. A lot of data is being added that conforms to the notability requirements and is highly structured. I applaud its inclusion in Wikidata because at some stage we will have the bandwidth to link such information in the tapestry that is Wikidata.
Wikidata is hard to understand for many people and I do welcome people who have something to add, something that is of value. When their data is limited in scope, it is better than not having data in the first place. When Wikidata is found to be limited in scope (and it is) it is all the more reason for people with opposing views / data to find their way and enrich Wikidata's content so that a more balanced, neutral view will emerge. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 February 2014 00:22, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU, something like "The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being paid to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable
policy
on each project where said users contribute."? Might that be a solution
to
establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding
local
intentions?
I tried to answer this on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Hope that clarifies a bit, given the relevant history.
Luis
P.S. We're replying to things on meta, since that is where the banners are directing people to go, and because it helps keep a history of the conversation in one place.
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it 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.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
As people seems to follow the conversation here, I paste the discussion I'm having with Geoff here too, otherwise people can participate directly on meta : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme... d. If so, sorry I missed those changes. ~~~~
Hi everyone, Over the last few hours people asked me to re-share my mail from January regarding paid editing and to even elaborate on it : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/069717.html I won't elaborate on that. This amendment is all for show. This is the kind of amendment that is not enforceable. It's only use is that some board of trustees will be able to get in front of the press and vigorously claim "Paid editing is bad!". Will it prevent people to edit without disclosing anything? No. Will it encourage companies to embrace our values and improve articles in fields they're experts in? No. Will it prevent biased volunteers to edit? No. So if we look at what our main issues are (increasing the number of editors, increasing quality) I don't see any way where this amendment will help us in any of this cases. And this is an issue we've had for 7 to 9 years, our projects didn't collapse. I'm really not sure why it is needed to have such amendment now. So, I don't care if this amendment is approved in the end, or not, as it will be useless and non-enforceable. Instead I'll keep on working with other people on proposing real solutions. Though I do have a quick question for the legal team, is it ok for a hosting organization to enforce rules that have an editorial inpact on the services it hosts? I mean, lawyers have been trying for years to sue Wikimedia organizations and prove that WMF has some level of editorial control over Wikipedia. If WMF is the one deciding how a specific set of editors must behave when editing, couldn't they use that to prove that WMF does, indeend, have some editorial power? Much alike an editor-in-chief chooses who's published in its paper and how they're credited. Best Schiste (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Schiste. Thanks for your comments. I actually think the amendment may have a positive effect, and I summarize some of the reasons here. Your question on hosting liability is a smart one. Hosting companies can set out general rules in their terms of use, even when those rules affect the content of the site. Also this proposed amendment simply explains how to disclose an affiliation without any regulation on the content itself. (The terms already prohibit misrepresentation of an affiliation.) The proposed amendment thus would not affect our hosting liability exemption. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I've read the FAQ and I fail to find the "positive" outcome. However I can clearly see the possible harm to our project. The projects where created on the belief that anyone could help improve our knowledge. I still do believe that strongly. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone, no exclusion.Our job, as a community was to make sure the edits where ok. Now we're shifting toward making sure the editors are ok.How can we be surprized that we're loosing contributors when we have that stance? Do you believe that asking people that are "paid editing" to display their affiliations is going to : * Stabilize infrastructure * Increase participation * Improve quality * Increase reach * Encourage innovation
I don't believe it will.
Actually it's a rather conservative move that will make some companies, that would be ready to participate in good faith, feel targeted and "marked" and hinder their wish to participate.
Thus preventing new contributors to join our projects and not increasing the quality of the projects.
It will, and the question has been asked on my Facebook feed once already, make researchers and GLAM partners ponder weither they should or not display their affiliation.
And, I'm sure you know it, incertainity, fear and doubt are the things you try to avoid when negociating partnerships.
So, at best this change will actually not change anything as paid editing will still happen under the hood and no one will be able to check everyone's affiliation. And at worse we'll lose potential partners, or make the work of volunteers negotiating those partnerships harder, and make it even harder to innovate with companies to find new ways to increase our reach, participation and quality. But perhaps our core values (everyone can edit) and the movement strategic orientation (the five points above) have changed. If so, sorry I missed those changes. Schiste (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC) -- Christophe
On 21 February 2014 16:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When people make information available that fits in the notability requirements of Wikidata and, when the information is factually correct, then I do not think that anyone really cares if the person uploading it is gets paid for it or not.
Please explain to me why I should care.
As it is the one thing that Wikidata lacks is data. A lot of data is being added that conforms to the notability requirements and is highly structured. I applaud its inclusion in Wikidata because at some stage we will have the bandwidth to link such information in the tapestry that is Wikidata.
Wikidata is hard to understand for many people and I do welcome people who have something to add, something that is of value. When their data is limited in scope, it is better than not having data in the first place. When Wikidata is found to be limited in scope (and it is) it is all the more reason for people with opposing views / data to find their way and enrich Wikidata's content so that a more balanced, neutral view will emerge. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 February 2014 00:22, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU, something like "The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being paid to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable
policy
on each project where said users contribute."? Might that be a solution
to
establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding
local
intentions?
I tried to answer this on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Hope that clarifies a bit, given the relevant history.
Luis
P.S. We're replying to things on meta, since that is where the banners are directing people to go, and because it helps keep a history of the conversation in one place.
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it 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.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 20:16:
- I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.
Please remember this is a description of the reality on en:wp. The reality looks very different on other version.
Thanks for talking about your situation :) I do think it's right to say this has been a concern on several projects, not only enwp, but it is true every wiki is different.
On svwp we are a group of a few hundred active contributes where paid editors and volunteers have a fruitful cooperation to create valuable and neutral articles. When we have discussed this proposal on our Village Pump we think it would be good to have it as a guideline and loose recommendation but if it would become mandatory we believe it would actually hurt our community and work. We are not bigger than it is possible for me alone to inspect all new articles from nonwikipedians 24/7, and react appropriate to different problems in the articles, and recognizing patterns of "strange" edits, and others are able to do the same for changes in articles
So please let each project decide on how to tackle the COi issue by themselves, and encourage exchange on best practices in the area. But also make sure No mandatory restrictions on all projects on contributers like this that would seriously harm the work in several projects
How do you seeing this as a restriction on contribution? As it is proposed it's not saying edits will be rejected, only that contributors who are paid to edit should note this on their userpage or in edit summaries. I think that every edit would still be subject to the same kind of editorial scrutiny that happens now.
(note I'm not arguing that this proposal is exactly the right answer, I just don't follow the reasoning why you think it would restrict contributions).
best, -- phoebe
Having led an all day workshop with different GLAM organizations in Cornwall, fresh in my mind are the stories of woe from respected museum professionals who have run into hot water on the English Wikipedia by creating "official" looking accounts to make edits for their institution and/or using material from their websites, including material that they personally published.
Whatever happens to the TOU, we do need to create extremely easy to understand guidance for GLAM professionals, preferably at the time of account creation and initial edits.
The current system is not only confusing, but is an active deterrent, at times permanently, for volunteers and professionals wanting to help Wikipedia with their expertise and leaves these type of contributors a bit embarrassed, feeling they have done something wrong and treated like a spammer, when they are exactly the types of good faith contributors that should be nurtured and prove invaluable for open knowledge content creation with a small amount of support from us.
Fae
phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 21:28:
How do you seeing this as a restriction on contribution? As it is proposed it's not saying edits will be rejected, only that contributors who are paid to edit should note this on their userpage or in edit summaries. I think that every edit would still be subject to the same kind of editorial scrutiny that happens now.
As I said we would be happy to have this as a guideline (we actually recommend companies to do this already and many present themself this way already)
But if we would start threating these users not to be welcome if they do not do this presentation it would make our cooperation worse and send some of them away. And even more if some of us by misunderstanding the mandatory writing started to threaten the big greyscale paid editors (glam people, big organizations - not being commercial compaines etc) it would really send a lot of valuable contributers away (and the paid editor are in general much better in proving sources... then unexperienced volunteers)
Also I think a mandatory rule like this would be taken negative by the general public in Sweden, where good cooperation between different categories of people always is seen as an ideal, and everthing hindering a cooperation built on trust (but also transparency) is seen as negative
Anders
Hi Dominic,
2014-02-19 18:46 GMT-08:00 Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdevitd@gmail.com:
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but different concepts). My writing (and disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest.
Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes. All failures to disclose affiliation are "deceptive" according to the language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but self-interested comment on a talk page (like "Actually, the library has 4 branches, not 3"). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to "applicable law"(!) As if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced community policies are already in place on major projects.
Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.
First, IANAL, but an "academic ... who makes their first tentative edit" or other normal newbies will most likely not fall under that provision, unless they are instructed by their employer to make that edit (but then, why would an organization such as an university spend money to pay someone for work in which that person has no experience whatsoever?).
Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony ("outlaw mistakes") and likely to be the target of legal action. In my observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different. As a comparison, the terms of use also forbid copyright infringement and require proper attribution of content. Yet as we all know, newbie mistakes in that area are very common, and even many experienced editors violate [[WP:CWW]] without facing major consequences or lawsuits ;) However, that doesn't mean at all that we should drop these requirements - they help us achieving our goal of building a body of knowledge that can be freely shared and reused.
Last, you vehemently object to the text mentioning that people "will be subject to 'applicable law'(!)". Well, the Foundation doesn't make these laws, and not mentioning them in the TOU doesn't make them go away. They are not mere "stumbling blocks" that WMF can remove in order to make the life of GLAM professionals a bit easier. You should instead complain to the FTC or the other (non-US) legal institutions mentioned in the FAQ about this point.
You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those types of desirable contributions that "In fact, Wikipedians in Residence usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and disclosure." I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use.
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.) I don't question that conflicts of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems more like an overreach than any kind of solution.
Dominic
(Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.)
Me neither ;) Although I work for the Foundation in my day job, I have also been a volunteer editor for a decade now, and I'm speaking as such here. Over the years I have lost a lot of time trying to maintain NPOV in articles that were subject to (as it would turn out later) undisclosed paid editing, and turned away in frustration from many others that likely were, because I lacked the time and energy to get involved. And I think that many of our conversations about this problem area are missing the voice of the editors who actually do this kind of unrewarding work of cleaning up after edits where someone was paid to advance interests that do not align with those of Wikipedia and our readers. Instead, the discussions about this topic, even on this mailing list, often see heavy participation by the minority of community members who do, or have done, professional PR work or paid work related to content contribution, often without disclosing it in these discussions. Don't get me wrong, I respect your own approach to disclosure, and understand that you speak for others who don't follow the same good principles as you do. (And BTW, I'm a fan of your GLAM-Wiki project, and spent hours volunteering for it, categorizing hundreds of the NARA images uploaded by your bot.) But the GLAM perspective is not the only one, and if there really exists legitimate, beneficial work by Wikimedians-in-residence such as yourself that would be seriously affected in the negative by the current wording of the proposed amendment - which I highly doubt - there should be ways of remedying that without rejecting it entirely, or otherwise harming its overall goals.
Regards, HaeB (T. Bayer)
On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello all,
We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Please join the discussion on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
HaeB, 20/02/2014 06:56:
Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony ("outlaw mistakes") and likely to be the target of legal action. In my observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different.
Indeed. The reality is that it's a criminal offense, at least in USA, and any attorney with enough hate for the world can prosecute you until you commmit suicide.
Nemo
On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB haebwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.
I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do want to clarify some of my points.
First, IANAL, but an "academic ... who makes their first tentative edit" or other normal newbies will most likely not fall under that provision, unless they are instructed by their employer to make that edit (but then, why would an organization such as an university spend money to pay someone for work in which that person has no experience whatsoever?).
I know that you are familiar with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program, which did exactly what you are suggesting is so bizarre. Yes, many professors over the years have made their first edits as part of their paid work of teaching university courses, and I doubt they were all diligent about disclosure, or that many people minded. And it's not hard to imagine other activities an academic, with a professional mandate to provide public education, could legitimately perform on Wikimedia as part of their day job. The president of the American Historical Association wrote an article saying that historians have a professional obligation to do so. Sue Gardner gave a keynote for the American Library Association suggesting the same thing for librarians. I believe the reason universities and scholars would do this sort of thing and receive compensation for it is that, like an academic's normal day job, it serves the public interest. These are all mainstream and fairly well-understood concepts within the Wikimedia community, even though they entail (non-advocacy) paid editing.
Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony
("outlaw mistakes") and likely to be the target of legal action. In my observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different. As a comparison, the terms of use also forbid copyright infringement and require proper attribution of content. Yet as we all know, newbie mistakes in that area are very common, and even many experienced editors violate [[WP:CWW]] without facing major consequences or lawsuits ;) However, that doesn't mean at all that we should drop these requirements - they help us achieving our goal of building a body of knowledge that can be freely shared and reused.
I appreciate that you think I am overreacting, but you are putting words in my mouth--I clearly understand that a Wikimedia TOU is not a legislative action by the government, and I was only suggesting that the WMF would be making a rule, not a literal law. By dismissing me in that way, you have ignored my real point, which is that the proposed text sets up a situation in which any reasonable, well-intentioned new paid editor is naturally likely to violate the site's TOU. That is not itself a reason not to have such a clause in a TOU, but it does seem like it would contribute to the feeling that Wikipedia is overly rule-bound and unwelcoming to newcomers.
Last, you vehemently object to the text mentioning that people "will
be subject to 'applicable law'(!)". Well, the Foundation doesn't make these laws, and not mentioning them in the TOU doesn't make them go away. They are not mere "stumbling blocks" that WMF can remove in order to make the life of GLAM professionals a bit easier. You should instead complain to the FTC or the other (non-US) legal institutions mentioned in the FAQ about this point.
I did not anywhere advocate for making laws go away, or thinking that this is a TOU's role. Any person is always bound by all applicable laws in anything they do, as you say. The fact that there may be an applicable law does not necessitate making a TOU to state that unless it is constructive in some way to do so.
Instead, the discussions about this topic, even on this mailing list, often see heavy participation by the minority of community members who do, or have done, professional PR work or paid work related to content contribution, often without disclosing it in these discussions.
It doesn't appear anyone described by the above sentence has weighed in here yet (nor did such people dominate the recent "Paid editing v. paid advocacy" thread), unless that is aimed at me. You probably won't be surprised to hear that, from my perspective, these discussions are seem to suffer from the conflation paid advocacy and paid editing in pursuit of Wikimedia's mission. This discussion shows how the proposal promotes that same conflation, except it is all "undisclosed paid editing" that is now the enemy, still with no regard as to whether it is advocacy or not.
The goal in this discussion should not be to say why paid advocacy is bad. That is a given for most people. The point of the discussion is to establish what good this proposal for the TOU would do for Wikimedia's mission, and if it is worth the potential harm.
Dominic
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdevitd@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB haebwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.
I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do want to clarify some of my points.
First, IANAL, but an "academic ... who makes their first tentative edit" or other normal newbies will most likely not fall under that provision, unless they are instructed by their employer to make that edit (but then, why would an organization such as an university spend money to pay someone for work in which that person has no experience whatsoever?).
I know that you are familiar with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program, which did exactly what you are suggesting is so bizarre. Yes, many professors over the years have made their first edits as part of their paid work of teaching university courses,
Yes, but that comparison is a mischaracterization of what the Education Program does. Of course it does not pay (or suggest to pay) professors to make clueless newbie edits "with no experience whatsoever" in ignorance of community policies or the TOU. From its beginning as the "Public Policy Initiative", the program included guidance for the participating instructors (e.g. training by Ambassadors), to help them understand policies and provide training experience, before they engage in their Wikipedia course work. That's far from how I understood the situation that you had been evoking, where an academic is just toying around with editing. I know you worked as a Campus Ambassador yourself, and I'm relieved to see that the very first edits of the professor you were supporting back then consisted of this kind of disclosure. I sure hope she was made aware of basic Wikipedia principles before engaging in the paid work of teaching that Wikipedia university course.
What's more, the Education Program has since even hardcoded such disclosure into MediaWiki, in form of the Education Program extension for MediaWiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Courses (click through to the course pages and look at the "Instructors" field in the table)
and I doubt they were all diligent about disclosure, or that many people minded.
Actually, a whole lot of people minded. The English Wikipedia community has become quite adamant about disclosure. Last year there was a huge community controversy about a case where one Canadian professor was (in his own words) "going 'underground'" with his Wikipedia course, refusing to take part in the Education Program because he felt that its disclosure requirements would bring unwarranted scrutiny by Wikipedians. IIRC, in the lengthy discussions on the education noticeboard, no community members supported this position.
And it's not hard to imagine other activities an academic, with a professional mandate to provide public education, could legitimately perform on Wikimedia as part of their day job.
Sure, I don't see this being disputed.
The president of the American Historical Association wrote an article saying that historians have a professional obligation to do so.
If you meant to say that this article talks about day jobs: http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-histo... ...then I think that this is misrepresenting its content - it ends with the words "Any volunteers?" and says that historians should follow the example of "Scientists, engineers, and programmers [who] have been contributing sophisticated entries to Wikipedia almost from the beginning", certainly not as paid editors back then.
Sue Gardner gave a keynote for the American Library Association suggesting the same thing for librarians.
Could you cite the exact wording where she was talking about editing as part of their day jobs? (If it helps, here is the brief summary I wrote back then for the Signpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-27/News_a... )
I believe the reason universities and scholars would do this sort of thing and receive compensation for it is that, like an academic's normal day job, it serves the public interest. These are all mainstream and fairly well-understood concepts within the Wikimedia community, even though they entail (non-advocacy) paid editing.
Dominic, nobody is trying to prohibit this kind of activity per se, and personally I agree it can be a good thing. But if we get these universities to write the improvement of Wikipedia into scholars' job responsibilities (instead of those of their PR staff, many of whom engage in problematic advocacy editing), then I can't see why adding a sentence to one's user page would be so big of a burden. My employer requires that btw, even though I make no paid edits to article content.
Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony
("outlaw mistakes") and likely to be the target of legal action. In my observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different. As a comparison, the terms of use also forbid copyright infringement and require proper attribution of content. Yet as we all know, newbie mistakes in that area are very common, and even many experienced editors violate [[WP:CWW]] without facing major consequences or lawsuits ;) However, that doesn't mean at all that we should drop these requirements - they help us achieving our goal of building a body of knowledge that can be freely shared and reused.
I appreciate that you think I am overreacting, but you are putting words in my mouth--I clearly understand that a Wikimedia TOU is not a legislative action by the government, and I was only suggesting that the WMF would be making a rule, not a literal law. By dismissing me in that way, you have ignored my real point, which is that the proposed text sets up a situation in which any reasonable, well-intentioned new paid editor is naturally likely to violate the site's TOU. That is not itself a reason not to have such a clause in a TOU, but it does seem like it would contribute to the feeling that Wikipedia is overly rule-bound and unwelcoming to newcomers.
I appreciate that you feel Wikipedia needs more paid editors and must not make even minimal additional requirements if someone edits professionally to fulfill their job responsibilities. But it's still worth being aware that the vast majority of new editors are volunteers and therefore not affected at all by the proposal.
Last, you vehemently object to the text mentioning that people "will
be subject to 'applicable law'(!)". Well, the Foundation doesn't make these laws, and not mentioning them in the TOU doesn't make them go away. They are not mere "stumbling blocks" that WMF can remove in order to make the life of GLAM professionals a bit easier. You should instead complain to the FTC or the other (non-US) legal institutions mentioned in the FAQ about this point.
I did not anywhere advocate for making laws go away, or thinking that this is a TOU's role. Any person is always bound by all applicable laws in anything they do, as you say. The fact that there may be an applicable law does not necessitate making a TOU to state that unless it is constructive in some way to do so.
Well, but then what's the downside in making paid editors aware of this legal risk? And thanks for clarifying your intention - I think it was reasonable to have interpreted your wording differently ("Now, they... will be subject to "applicable law"(!) As if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors ..."), but OK.
Instead, the discussions about this topic, even on this mailing list, often see heavy participation by the minority of community members who do, or have done, professional PR work or paid work related to content contribution, often without disclosing it in these discussions.
It doesn't appear anyone described by the above sentence has weighed in here yet (nor did such people dominate the recent "Paid editing v. paid advocacy" thread), unless that is aimed at me. You probably won't be surprised to hear that, from my perspective, these discussions are seem to suffer from the conflation paid advocacy and paid editing in pursuit of Wikimedia's mission. This discussion shows how the proposal promotes that same conflation, except it is all "undisclosed paid editing" that is now the enemy, still with no regard as to whether it is advocacy or not.
The goal in this discussion should not be to say why paid advocacy is bad. That is a given for most people. The point of the discussion is to establish what good this proposal for the TOU would do for Wikimedia's mission, and if it is worth the potential harm.
It's also part of the discussion to assess the potential harm, and I responded to your email because I think it vastly exaggerated it. And the point about the imbalance in participation between these two groups is that one of them (naturally) might focus their attention on potential downsides if they feel their way of earning an income might be negatively affected by such a proposal, and the other is in a better position to assess whether it might help with the problem that they are spending their volunteer time to mitigate.
stephen,
i think it would be wiser to tackle this technically. let mark a contribution as "COI" when pressing save. the community will make something out of it, you can be sure. if a person makes too often errors not marking that an edit is COI, then its easy to make a community backed rule to ban the person from the projects for not complying. one can also make a rule that only 5% of a persons edits are allowed to be COI and the editor numbers would go up.
but i understand, your job is in the legal department, so you are only allowed to produce text, not code, which is a pity :( but please do not forget, if you write one line of text, there are thousands who read it, and it might be used in legal hassles - which is not at the core of the "free" in the wikimedia vision and mission.
rupert.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hello all,
We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Please join the discussion on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100% certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive from it - either way.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2014-02-19 23:06 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org:
Hello all,
We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Please join the discussion on the talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100% certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive from it - either way.
Hi, Lodewijk - Geoff responded to this general concern here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Hope that helps answer the question.
Luis
I don't really understand how this is a response to my question, but thanks for the pointer anyway. It doesn't explain why we would want one rule for all projects, it doesn't explain why we want it to be 'enforcable' in the first place.
I'm answering also here to keep the discussion streamlined.
Best, Lodewijk
2014-02-21 0:12 GMT+01:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of
Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100% certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive from it - either way.
Hi, Lodewijk - Geoff responded to this general concern here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Hope that helps answer the question.
Luis
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it 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.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
it seems my email was rejected, trying to send again:
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100% certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive from it - either way.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2014-02-19 23:06 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org:
Hello all,
We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Please join the discussion on the talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org