Hi,
In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas.
- You can find the current version of our terms of use here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use . - You can view the new draft here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use
As I see it, right now our present terms of use is not much more than a licensing agreement. It does not address a number of other subjects that are normally found in terms of use of other community-driven websites and that are often relevant for both legal and community reasons. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use ( http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .
What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft.
Our plan is to review the comments and feedback, make appropriate changes and edits, return with a revised version, and, if appropriate, propose that draft to the Board of Trustees for adoption and translation.
Generally, we sought to craft a document that is more even-handed, shorter, and easier-to-read than most user agreements. Although we encourage you to read the entire draft, here are some key provisions to give you some flavor:
- Security: The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions - like malware - that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising. - Roles and responsibilities: We feel we need to be honest with the community on a number of issues, including user liability. We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance on this topic. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble. - Community feedback: With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved … obviously. So the proposed agreement gives users a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes. - Free Licensing: We felt our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors. - Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis. - Other Legal Provisions: We do have other legal provisions...we are lawyers after all. Most notably, the proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as disclaimers and limitations on liability.
Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Your input will be invaluable.
Geoff
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Geoff Brigham gbrigham@wikimedia.org Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Geoff Brigham gbrigham@wikimedia.org
Hi,
In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas.
- You can find the current version of our terms of use here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use . - You can view the new draft here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use
As I see it, right now our present terms of use is not much more than a licensing agreement. It does not address a number of other subjects that are normally found in terms of use of other community-driven websites and that are often relevant for both legal and community reasons. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use ( http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .
What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft.
Our plan is to review the comments and feedback, make appropriate changes and edits, return with a revised version, and, if appropriate, propose that draft to the Board of Trustees for adoption and translation.
Generally, we sought to craft a document that is more even-handed, shorter, and easier-to-read than most user agreements. Although we encourage you to read the entire draft, here are some key provisions to give you some flavor:
- Security: The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions - like malware - that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising. - Roles and responsibilities: We feel we need to be honest with the community on a number of issues, including user liability. We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance on this topic. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble. - Community feedback: With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved … obviously. So the proposed agreement gives users a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes. - Free Licensing: We felt our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors. - Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis. - Other Legal Provisions: We do have other legal provisions...we are lawyers after all. Most notably, the proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as disclaimers and limitations on liability.
Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Your input will be invaluable.
Geoff
The previous terms contained essentially no behavioral prohibitions. I'm not sure if this was out of concern for Section 230 status, the independence of projects wrt policy making, or some other reason, but this new set of terms is a huge departure. It prohibits a broad range of unwanted activity, which raises the question: how does the WMF intend to enforce it? Would enforcing these terms threaten its immunity as a service provider? If the terms are not consistently enforced, doesn't that present its own set of liability concerns?
I'd also like to see some exceptions to the indemnity terms. The way I read it, an editor could violate a law that itself contradicts international human rights norms, and if the WMF incurred any joint liability as a result, the indemnification attempts to transfer that liability to the editor. I can see unintended consequences coming from this; even if as a practical matter the WMF can make a case-by-case decision, departing from the terms - where the terms allow no flexibility - presents its own problems. If for no other reason, stating a human rights exception to the terms would make clear Wikimedia's intention to be a good corporate citizen (a fact that is otherwise just implied by the folksy writing style.)
Nathan
Thanks Geoff. One point that I would like some clarification on-
- Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited.
Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban forextreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
Thanks Theo
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
- Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't have that recurring problem anymore!
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 01:48, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
- Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't have that recurring problem anymore!
hahaha ... sure, where does it stop and whats next? do not have any stewards any more? then have no admins any more? i would really love if you just ask any person on the street the question: imagine you give 10 $ to wikipedia, should we use it to pay a lawyer to make the terms of use 10 times as long as before? and then count the "yes" answers :)
rupert.
That'll be more than $10 at ~$200/hour. :P
~K
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:14 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 01:48, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
- Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term
issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited.
Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a globalban for
extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed
from a
number of community members. We will share that policy with the
community in
draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we
hope
volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left
solely
to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering
what
the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't have that recurring problem anymore!
hahaha ... sure, where does it stop and whats next? do not have any stewards any more? then have no admins any more? i would really love if you just ask any person on the street the question: imagine you give 10 $ to wikipedia, should we use it to pay a lawyer to make the terms of use 10 times as long as before? and then count the "yes" answers :)
rupert.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 02:14, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 01:48, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
- Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't have that recurring problem anymore!
hahaha ... sure, where does it stop and whats next? do not have any stewards any more? then have no admins any more? i would really love if you just ask any person on the street the question: imagine you give 10 $ to wikipedia, should we use it to pay a lawyer to make the terms of use 10 times as long as before? and then count the "yes" answers :)
ToS is WMF's issue and WMF should implement it. Stewards are not WMF's employees and deals with community rules.
It is true that harassment is problem, but community doesn't have tools to deal with it; which means that stewards don't have as well. As WMF stepped out, that means that it has the idea how to implement it.
As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment, since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really good news for stewards!
On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment, since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really good news for stewards!
The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take over its work.
Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]
Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty basic and straightforward thing to do.
Thanks, Sue
[1] I wish I had that study at hand, but I don't. I found it, I think, through a Google Scholar search related to danah boyd. The researcher was an expert in online harassment, either at Berkman or maybe MIT.
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment, since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really good news for stewards!
The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take over its work.
Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]
Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty basic and straightforward thing to do.
Thanks, Sue
[1] I wish I had that study at hand, but I don't. I found it, I think, through a Google Scholar search related to danah boyd. The researcher was an expert in online harassment, either at Berkman or maybe MIT.
There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate, although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines. The difference is perhaps, largely cultural, and especially in non-English speaking communities, where translations may be inexact and externally misinterpreted. That is why I think that issues such as this should be determined at a local Wiki level rather than being seen to be imposed at a higher, and (it has to be said) Anglo-centric level.
But I am also fully aware that whatever TOS are stated, some editors won't subscribe to them, for whatever reason, and others, even if aware of them, will lawyer or sock their way round them. And there is little that can be done about that at Foundation level other than setting out a principle. Well, hot dog! POV-pushers will continue to do so, and bully other editors with whom they are in disagreement, regardless of principles. But those editors will be sanctioned locally, and maybe find that there is no WM project left for their outpourings.
Global bans are already available; but disruptive editors on one Wiki within the WM umbrella have gone on to be constructive editors elsewhere. I seem to remember Jimbo preaching forgiveness, and I see this proposal, unless I have misunderstood it completely, as being anathema to that.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Global bans are already available; but disruptive editors on one Wiki within the WM umbrella have gone on to be constructive editors elsewhere. I seem to remember Jimbo preaching forgiveness, and I see this proposal, unless I have misunderstood it completely, as being anathema to that.
The terms merely say that you *can* be banned locally or globally for violating the ToS or community-created policy, not precisely *how* or *when *that happens in every case. For local matters, they'll function exactly how they do now, and I hope it's clear that the terms set out to complement and support how the projects function individually on a day-to-day basis, not change that at all.
For global issues, I think this will be worked out when there is a clear policy that lays out how global bans should work. That's why there's a red link to "Global Ban Policy" in the document.
As usual, the devil is in the details: we could have a policy that says that anyone with a ban on two or more projects is automatically globally banned (hypothetical, not desirable at all from my POV). Or we can go the route that assumes that all governance over bans is completely local to the individual projects where a user might appear, *until* the community asks for and comes to a cross-wiki consensus on a particularly bad case that requires a global ban. Ultimately how this works needs to be decided not by the Foundation, but by community members who know better than we do about what harassment, stalking, and the cross-wiki problems look like.
Also, in response to this and Milos' comments, I will say frankly that in our conversations at the Foundation we have not discussed some kind of team of staff reviewing/approving/implementing bans based on the Terms of Use as proposed. We're not Facebook. So while I agree that it's a good thing to quit making the Stewards deal with any decisions they don't want to make about global bans, like Sue said, it's not the job of the Terms to hand over volunteer functions to the Foundation.
Steven
P.S. It's only been a few hours and there is already a ton of useful feedback on the Talk page. \o/ Thanks to everyone who has jumped on this. You're awesome.
On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate, although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.
Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.
This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying to support and protect editors against really very egregious behaviour.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate, although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.
Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.
This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying to support and protect editors against really very egregious behaviour.
Thanks, Sue
Maybe I have missed the point, but my lawyer's/Wikimedian's mind tells me that hiking the TOS's is not going to have a major effect, and the effort into changing the TOS is arguably outweighed by the effort expended by those who care not for subscribing to those terms.
I think I've been around for long enough to know that not only are WM projects vulnerable to those with an agenda, who care not for blocks or bans, whether local or global; these people are committed to some agenda that is prepared to reject any idea of community, and proceed with that agenda as long, and as much as they can. I think we know of whom we are talking here.
But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to be able to subvert any technical measures, if only by moving his/her laptop into a new WiFi Area and crating a new account.
As a principle, global blocking is OK; in practice, it's a non-starter, and changing the TOS is not going to change that unless the Foundation is going to institute legal proceedings in extreme cases, which it has never done, and brings into doubt its s.530 status. I'm aware of more than one case in which this could have been done, but hasn't. unless and until there is a real move to do that, merely changing the wording, even globally, is nothing more than a gesture.
On 10 September 2011 01:15, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to be able to subvert any technical measures, if only by moving his/her laptop into a new WiFi Area and crating a new account.
In a possibly-surprising result, really egregious stalkers don't conceal themselves; they tend to act unconcealed (down to address and phone number), in an attempt to say that you can't do anything about them. And this is largely true - it's surprisingly difficult to do anything about mere intimidation *before* it gets physical. Adding a term to the TOS may seem a decoration liable to abuse, but the purpose is to give something phrased to actually be legally useful. Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to second-guess the phrasing Geoff' used here.
tl;dr this is actually thought out and for a reason, though great caution about it is understandable.
- d.
Thank you Geoff, Sue and others who are working on. I take this whole thread as one of good faith fruits and sincere desire on WMF to collaborate with us at the community as well to help us out.
Well, I however feel double-bound. In the one side I think it good and appropriate for WMF as a legal entity and users in general, particularly English speaking people. On the other side I am not sure how it can be practical for the community, users and people who are harassed on Wikimedia wikis but have never been a part of community in case any or extremely every involved party doesn't understand English and reside out of US jurisdiction.
Based on a fact of our community spreads globally, so differentiated into over a hundred by jurisdiction and by language, I have honestly no idea how ToU available only in English would affect us who are out of US jurisdiction and don't speak English daily. Even in the proposed 30 day review, it would be nominal for its user majority don't speak English, unless translations are provided in major languages to the project as well user base.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate, although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.
Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.
Unfortunately some names are passing in my mind ... frankly, several. More than ten. Whoa. And only two of them spoke English fluently iirc, and all of them are out of the US jurisdiction if we've analyzed given information correctly. That means, the local communities which have confronted those kinds of people, many of Wikimedia community member are not good in English either in many cases.
As said, whilst I welcome to make ToU more detailed and featuring many issues which the current one misses to mention, but for facilitating the community in entire, language barrier issues should be taken more seriously. Even into few language versions, for example. We need here make a practical compromise - yes, compromise, since it's obvious currently we have no way to provide every language. I have never seen any Wikimedia Foundation information, including fundraising banners, translated into every language in which Wikipedia at that time was running since 2004, when I joined the project.
Cheers,
This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying to support and protect editors against really very egregious behaviour.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 03:17, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment, since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really good news for stewards!
The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take over its work.
Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]
Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty basic and straightforward thing to do.
Sue, someone has to investigate and decide about harassment. Stewards are able to block, but don't judge; especially in the cases where it would be probably needed to analyze personal emails.
With or without that ToS, any sane ArbCom would block persons who harass others. But, we don't have a body which is able to do that globally. The first step is to get that body, then to make some things explicit.
I'd rather have harassment dealt with first by each community's AN/I boards and ArbCom if necessary, and then the Global Requests Committee or whatever it ends up being called. I don't think neither stewards nor the WMF are in the proper position to make arbitrary calls over user conduct. Stewards are meant to be for black and white cases. Personally, I support the introduction of a global ban policy allowing both for Committee and community bans.
~K
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
With or without that ToS, any sane ArbCom would block persons who harass others. But, we don't have a body which is able to do that globally. The first step is to get that body, then to make some things explicit.
On 8 September 2011 22:13, Geoff Brigham gbrigham@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas.
- You can find the current version of our terms of use here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use . - You can view the new draft here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use
To what extent are terms of use like this actually meaningful? Are there any precedents of them being upheld in court? If so, in what jurisdictions? Does using a website really constitute acceptance of a contract that everyone knows you haven't read?
If you're not actually going to be able to do anything with these terms of use, then we shouldn't have any.
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Geoff Brigham wrote:
What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft.
Okay...
"Prohibited activities include:" "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights;"
Copyright I can understand. Nobody wants copyvios.
But there are plenty of examples where we might infringe on patents.
Given that the doubly-linked list is the subject of a (possibly unenforceable) software patent in the United States, the very act of writing a Wikipedia article about or Wikibooks chapter on programming a linked list may count as infringing the software patent.
The paragraph before doesn't make it clear to me whether these are forbidden by the terms of use, forbidden by the rules of the projects or forbidden by law. The tone of the paragraph is kind of strange: it's already illegal for me to DDoS Wikipedia because of the UK's Computer Misuse Act etc. Skim-reading the list may lead the reader to think this adds no new rules to bide by beyond those imposed by the law of their country and the United States. It'd be helpful if that could be clarified.
I'm sure when I'm not tired and on the last train home, I'll find some other things to nitpick. ;-)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org