Pine, thanks for your reply, but Legal will not do anything like this unless they are instructed by management. That is why I directed my question to the board and management.
I've asked at Jimbo's talk page (bad timing, archived over the holidays, will repost) and at Katherine's WP talk page.
Am very interested to hear from the board and/or WMF management on this.
Jytdog
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:50:07 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Legal legal@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services Message-ID: <CAF=dyJhC8UqxkOY9FG9diGyobdgbbQaK_+M=m9E5Bo3aysPAOw@mail.gmail. com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Forwarding to Legal. I'm aware of the general problem of undisclosed COI editing, and agree that there should be some enforcement of this, particularly given that WMF wants to use Wikipedia's NPOV and RS policies as part of WMF's marketing. I also wonder if WMF might be able to recover the costs of enforcement expenses somehow, perhaps by including a statement in the TOS that says that people and their employers who engage in certain types of undisclosed COI editing must (1) reimburse WMF for attorney fees, court fees, and other related costs of investigations and enforcement, and (2) forfeit all revenue from their related activities to WMF. My guess is that significant financial penalties would be a bigger deterrent than name-and-shame and cease-and-desist letters.
Pine
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:50:03 -0500 From: Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services Message-ID: <CAAOzcj3cLaJOhvV6LvtqPTtULdj+9Ccanmht7EJQVLv+Lqa=Ww@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has discussed taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit Wikipedia and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in en-WP at least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their websites, where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never found disclosure by any of those companies in en-WP. I have looked and found no public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other than Wiki-PR.
Some en-Wiki editors recently identified a long-term paid editor and brought the matter to ANI: thread is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=757170150# Earflaps_-_accusations_of_being_an_undisclosed_paid_ editor_and_a_sock_puppet. This brought this whole thing to mind, and is something I have been wanting to ask about.
Three questions:
Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes been?
Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such companies?
If not, would you all please consider that?
Thanks.
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what they are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we aren't planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something about this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Happy new year!
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com wrote:
Pine, thanks for your reply, but Legal will not do anything like this unless they are instructed by management. That is why I directed my question to the board and management.
I've asked at Jimbo's talk page (bad timing, archived over the holidays, will repost) and at Katherine's WP talk page.
Am very interested to hear from the board and/or WMF management on this.
Jytdog
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:50:07 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Legal legal@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services Message-ID: <CAF=dyJhC8UqxkOY9FG9diGyobdgbbQaK_+M=m9E5Bo3aysPAOw@mail.gmail. com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Forwarding to Legal. I'm aware of the general problem of undisclosed COI editing, and agree that there should be some enforcement of this, particularly given that WMF wants to use Wikipedia's NPOV and RS policies as part of WMF's marketing. I also wonder if WMF might be able to recover the costs of enforcement expenses somehow, perhaps by including a
statement
in the TOS that says that people and their employers who engage in
certain
types of undisclosed COI editing must (1) reimburse WMF for attorney
fees,
court fees, and other related costs of investigations and enforcement,
and
(2) forfeit all revenue from their related activities to WMF. My guess is that significant financial penalties would be a bigger deterrent than name-and-shame and cease-and-desist letters.
Pine
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:50:03 -0500 From: Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services Message-ID: <CAAOzcj3cLaJOhvV6LvtqPTtULdj+9Ccanmht7EJQVLv+Lqa=Ww@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has discussed taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit
Wikipedia
and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in en-WP at least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their
websites,
where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never found disclosure by any of those companies in en-WP. I have looked and found
no
public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other than Wiki-PR.
Some en-Wiki editors recently identified a long-term paid editor and brought the matter to ANI: thread is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=757170150# Earflaps_-_accusations_of_being_an_undisclosed_paid_ editor_and_a_sock_puppet. This brought this whole thing to mind, and is something I have been
wanting
to ask about.
Three questions:
Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes been?
Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such
companies?
If not, would you all please consider that?
Thanks.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think it would be nice for a more direct input from the WMF over those not following the Terms of use.
I see some potential pitfalls, even in chasing companies that charge for content;
- would this draw WMF into a legal editorial position - would it drive them to further hide their activities - what would damage would be done if a court says its ok for a company/individual to control its image even on Wikipedia. we already deal with the EUs right to vanish
sometimes its better to not open the can. I think a lot more discussion over the implications and impact is needed unfortunately some of that can only be behind closed doors it going to need community trust(something I think isnt all there at the moment), before asking the WMF legal to pick a fight with anyone.
On 2 January 2017 at 08:52, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what they are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we aren't planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something about this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Happy new year!
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <jytdogtemp1@gmail.com
wrote:
Pine, thanks for your reply, but Legal will not do anything like this unless they are instructed by management. That is why I directed my question to the board and management.
I've asked at Jimbo's talk page (bad timing, archived over the holidays, will repost) and at Katherine's WP talk page.
Am very interested to hear from the board and/or WMF management on this.
Jytdog
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:50:07 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Legal legal@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services Message-ID: <CAF=dyJhC8UqxkOY9FG9diGyobdgbbQaK_
+M=m9E5Bo3aysPAOw@mail.gmail.
com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Forwarding to Legal. I'm aware of the general problem of undisclosed
COI
editing, and agree that there should be some enforcement of this, particularly given that WMF wants to use Wikipedia's NPOV and RS
policies
as part of WMF's marketing. I also wonder if WMF might be able to
recover
the costs of enforcement expenses somehow, perhaps by including a
statement
in the TOS that says that people and their employers who engage in
certain
types of undisclosed COI editing must (1) reimburse WMF for attorney
fees,
court fees, and other related costs of investigations and enforcement,
and
(2) forfeit all revenue from their related activities to WMF. My guess
is
that significant financial penalties would be a bigger deterrent than name-and-shame and cease-and-desist letters.
Pine
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:50:03 -0500 From: Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services Message-ID: <CAAOzcj3cLaJOhvV6LvtqPTtULdj+9Ccanmht7EJQVLv+Lqa=Ww@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has discussed taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit
Wikipedia
and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in en-WP at least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their
websites,
where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never found disclosure by any of those companies in en-WP. I have looked and found
no
public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other than Wiki-PR.
Some en-Wiki editors recently identified a long-term paid editor and brought the matter to ANI: thread is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=757170150# Earflaps_-_accusations_of_being_an_undisclosed_paid_ editor_and_a_sock_puppet. This brought this whole thing to mind, and is something I have been
wanting
to ask about.
Three questions:
Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes been?
Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such
companies?
If not, would you all please consider that?
Thanks.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Good points, Gnangarra. I started to write out a reply before realizing that maybe I would give ideas to our adversaries, so I'll wait here for Legal to talk. Perhaps some of us can continue this conversation behind closed doors.
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be nice for a more direct input from the WMF over those not following the Terms of use.
I see some potential pitfalls, even in chasing companies that charge for content;
- would this draw WMF into a legal editorial position
- would it drive them to further hide their activities
- what would damage would be done if a court says its ok for a
company/individual to control its image even on Wikipedia. we already deal with the EUs right to vanish
sometimes its better to not open the can. I think a lot more discussion over the implications and impact is needed unfortunately some of that can only be behind closed doors it going to need community trust(something I think isnt all there at the moment), before asking the WMF legal to pick a fight with anyone.
On 2 January 2017 at 08:52, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what they are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we aren't planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something
about
this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Happy new year!
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <
jytdogtemp1@gmail.com
wrote:
Pine, thanks for your reply, but Legal will not do anything like this unless they are instructed by management. That is why I directed my question to the board and management.
I've asked at Jimbo's talk page (bad timing, archived over the
holidays,
will repost) and at Katherine's WP talk page.
Am very interested to hear from the board and/or WMF management on
this.
Jytdog
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:50:07 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Legal legal@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services Message-ID: <CAF=dyJhC8UqxkOY9FG9diGyobdgbbQaK_
+M=m9E5Bo3aysPAOw@mail.gmail.
com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Forwarding to Legal. I'm aware of the general problem of undisclosed
COI
editing, and agree that there should be some enforcement of this, particularly given that WMF wants to use Wikipedia's NPOV and RS
policies
as part of WMF's marketing. I also wonder if WMF might be able to
recover
the costs of enforcement expenses somehow, perhaps by including a
statement
in the TOS that says that people and their employers who engage in
certain
types of undisclosed COI editing must (1) reimburse WMF for attorney
fees,
court fees, and other related costs of investigations and
enforcement,
and
(2) forfeit all revenue from their related activities to WMF. My
guess
is
that significant financial penalties would be a bigger deterrent than name-and-shame and cease-and-desist letters.
Pine
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:50:03 -0500 From: Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
offer
paid editing servicesMessage-ID: <CAAOzcj3cLaJOhvV6LvtqPTtULdj+9Ccanmht7EJQVLv+Lqa=Ww@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has discussed taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit
Wikipedia
and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in en-WP at least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their
websites,
where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never
found
disclosure by any of those companies in en-WP. I have looked and
found
no
public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other
than
Wiki-PR.
Some en-Wiki editors recently identified a long-term paid editor and brought the matter to ANI: thread is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=757170150# Earflaps_-_accusations_of_being_an_undisclosed_paid_ editor_and_a_sock_puppet. This brought this whole thing to mind, and is something I have been
wanting
to ask about.
Three questions:
Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes been?
Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such
companies?
If not, would you all please consider that?
Thanks.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is something that people can natter over endlessly.
The question is to the WMF board and management. These are the people who can authorize action or not. Anything else is just talk.
Again - what discussions has the WMF had, at the corporate decision-making level, about taking legal action against companies that advertise WP editing services and that have no evidence of disclosure as required under the ToU?
Thanks.
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Good points, Gnangarra. I started to write out a reply before realizing that maybe I would give ideas to our adversaries, so I'll wait here for Legal to talk. Perhaps some of us can continue this conversation behind closed doors.
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be nice for a more direct input from the WMF over those not following the Terms of use.
I see some potential pitfalls, even in chasing companies that charge for content;
- would this draw WMF into a legal editorial position
- would it drive them to further hide their activities
- what would damage would be done if a court says its ok for a
company/individual to control its image even on Wikipedia. we already deal with the EUs right to vanish
sometimes its better to not open the can. I think a lot more discussion over the implications and impact is needed unfortunately some of that can only be behind closed doors it going to need community trust(something I think isnt all there at the moment), before asking the WMF legal to
pick a
fight with anyone.
On 2 January 2017 at 08:52, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what
they
are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we
aren't
planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something
about
this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Happy new year!
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <
jytdogtemp1@gmail.com
wrote:
Pine, thanks for your reply, but Legal will not do anything like this unless they are instructed by management. That is why I directed my question to the board and management.
I've asked at Jimbo's talk page (bad timing, archived over the
holidays,
will repost) and at Katherine's WP talk page.
Am very interested to hear from the board and/or WMF management on
this.
Jytdog
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:50:07 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Legal legal@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies
that
offer paid editing servicesMessage-ID: <CAF=dyJhC8UqxkOY9FG9diGyobdgbbQaK_
+M=m9E5Bo3aysPAOw@mail.gmail.
com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Forwarding to Legal. I'm aware of the general problem of
undisclosed
COI
editing, and agree that there should be some enforcement of this, particularly given that WMF wants to use Wikipedia's NPOV and RS
policies
as part of WMF's marketing. I also wonder if WMF might be able to
recover
the costs of enforcement expenses somehow, perhaps by including a
statement
in the TOS that says that people and their employers who engage in
certain
types of undisclosed COI editing must (1) reimburse WMF for
attorney
fees,
court fees, and other related costs of investigations and
enforcement,
and
(2) forfeit all revenue from their related activities to WMF. My
guess
is
that significant financial penalties would be a bigger deterrent
than
name-and-shame and cease-and-desist letters.
Pine
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:50:03 -0500 From: Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
offer
paid editing servicesMessage-ID: <CAAOzcj3cLaJOhvV6LvtqPTtULdj+9Ccanmht7EJQVLv+Lqa=Ww@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has
discussed
taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit
Wikipedia
and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in en-WP
at
least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their
websites,
where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never
found
disclosure by any of those companies in en-WP. I have looked and
found
no
public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other
than
Wiki-PR.
Some en-Wiki editors recently identified a long-term paid editor
and
brought the matter to ANI: thread is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=757170150# Earflaps_-_accusations_of_being_an_undisclosed_paid_ editor_and_a_sock_puppet. This brought this whole thing to mind, and is something I have been
wanting
to ask about.
Three questions:
Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes
been?
Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such
companies?
If not, would you all please consider that?
Thanks.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Like most in western countries you'll find most of the WMF staff are currently out of office so I wouldnt expect much back especially not officially from them until after the 9th January.
On 2 January 2017 at 16:42, Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com wrote:
This is something that people can natter over endlessly.
The question is to the WMF board and management. These are the people who can authorize action or not. Anything else is just talk.
Again - what discussions has the WMF had, at the corporate decision-making level, about taking legal action against companies that advertise WP editing services and that have no evidence of disclosure as required under the ToU?
Thanks.
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Good points, Gnangarra. I started to write out a reply before realizing that maybe I would give ideas to our adversaries, so I'll wait here for Legal to talk. Perhaps some of us can continue this conversation behind closed doors.
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be nice for a more direct input from the WMF over
those
not following the Terms of use.
I see some potential pitfalls, even in chasing companies that charge
for
content;
- would this draw WMF into a legal editorial position
- would it drive them to further hide their activities
- what would damage would be done if a court says its ok for a
company/individual to control its image even on Wikipedia. we
already
deal with the EUs right to vanish
sometimes its better to not open the can. I think a lot more
discussion
over the implications and impact is needed unfortunately some of that
can
only be behind closed doors it going to need community trust(something
I
think isnt all there at the moment), before asking the WMF legal to
pick a
fight with anyone.
On 2 January 2017 at 08:52, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what
they
are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we
aren't
planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something
about
this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Happy new year!
Pine
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <
jytdogtemp1@gmail.com
wrote:
Pine, thanks for your reply, but Legal will not do anything like
this
unless they are instructed by management. That is why I directed
my
question to the board and management.
I've asked at Jimbo's talk page (bad timing, archived over the
holidays,
will repost) and at Katherine's WP talk page.
Am very interested to hear from the board and/or WMF management on
this.
Jytdog
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:50:07 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Legal legal@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies
that
offer paid editing servicesMessage-ID: <CAF=dyJhC8UqxkOY9FG9diGyobdgbbQaK_
+M=m9E5Bo3aysPAOw@mail.gmail.
com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Forwarding to Legal. I'm aware of the general problem of
undisclosed
COI
editing, and agree that there should be some enforcement of this, particularly given that WMF wants to use Wikipedia's NPOV and RS
policies
as part of WMF's marketing. I also wonder if WMF might be able to
recover
the costs of enforcement expenses somehow, perhaps by including a
statement
in the TOS that says that people and their employers who engage
in
certain
types of undisclosed COI editing must (1) reimburse WMF for
attorney
fees,
court fees, and other related costs of investigations and
enforcement,
and
(2) forfeit all revenue from their related activities to WMF. My
guess
is
that significant financial penalties would be a bigger deterrent
than
name-and-shame and cease-and-desist letters.
Pine
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:50:03 -0500 From: Jytdog at Wikipedia jytdogtemp1@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that
offer
paid editing servicesMessage-ID: <CAAOzcj3cLaJOhvV6LvtqPTtULdj+
9Ccanmht7EJQVLv+Lqa=Ww@mail.
gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am interested to learn if WMF management or the board has
discussed
taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit
Wikipedia
and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits (in
en-WP
at
least) per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their
websites,
where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never
found
disclosure by any of those companies in en-WP. I have looked and
found
no
public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other
than
Wiki-PR.
Some en-Wiki editors recently identified a long-term paid editor
and
brought the matter to ANI: thread is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=757170150# Earflaps_-_accusations_of_being_an_undisclosed_paid_ editor_and_a_sock_puppet. This brought this whole thing to mind, and is something I have
been
wanting
to ask about.
Three questions:
Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes
been?
Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such
companies?
If not, would you all please consider that?
Thanks.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 02/01/2017 00:52, Pine W wrote:
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what they are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we aren't planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something about this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Aren't they likely to get hoisted by their own petard? When Dcoetzee snaffled those images from the NPG WMF Legal argued that as there was no specific need to ever having read a websites T&C a website could not take action if anyone violating said T&C.
Any compliant by the WMF is also likely to raise the ire of the EFF . https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-service-not-crim...
Hi Jytdog, all -
A gentle and kind reminder that the WMF offices are closed for the holidays right now. Please look for an answer when we return.
Our normal working days resume tomorrow.
Happy New Year!
Yours, Katherine
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 05:02 Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
On 02/01/2017 00:52, Pine W wrote:
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what they
are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we aren't
planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something
about
this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this
discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of
formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Aren't they likely to get hoisted by their own petard? When Dcoetzee
snaffled those images from the NPG WMF Legal argued that as there was no
specific need to ever having read a websites T&C a website could not
take action if anyone violating said T&C.
Any compliant by the WMF is also likely to raise the ire of the EFF .
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-service-not-crim...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Katherine. I look forward to hearing from someone.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Jytdog, all -
A gentle and kind reminder that the WMF offices are closed for the holidays right now. Please look for an answer when we return.
Our normal working days resume tomorrow.
Happy New Year!
Yours, Katherine
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 05:02 Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
On 02/01/2017 00:52, Pine W wrote:
(: I think that Legal could at least describe in general terms what
they
are currently doing and have plans to do in the near future.
If it turns out that the answers are "we aren't doing much and we
aren't
planning to do more", then yes, asking the higher-ups to do something
about
this sounds like a good idea. By the way, I think the timing for this
discussion is good, because WMF should be in the early stages of
formulating the 2017-2018 annual plan.
Aren't they likely to get hoisted by their own petard? When Dcoetzee
snaffled those images from the NPG WMF Legal argued that as there was no
specific need to ever having read a websites T&C a website could not
take action if anyone violating said T&C.
Any compliant by the WMF is also likely to raise the ire of the EFF .
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-
service-not-crime-bypassing
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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@lists.wikimedia.org