Hi everyone,
As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This updated version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en.[1] A short overview of some of the changes is set out herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use. [2]
Best wishes, Philippe
[1] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en [2] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hi everyone,
As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This updated version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en.[1] A short overview of some of the changes is set out herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use. [2]
Best wishes, Philippe
Terms of use are boring, and most of us are pretty jaded by how impenetrable, legalistic and, well, awful, most terms of use are on the internet.
I want to congratulate you and your department on NOT doing this. The new terms of use are written in clear English, well set out, and cover what seem to be the appropriate bases without being overly verbose and cautious.
Well done, Philippe, Geoff, and everyone else.
On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hi everyone,
As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This updated version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en.[1] A short overview of some of the changes is set out herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use. [2]
Best wishes, Philippe
Terms of use are boring, and most of us are pretty jaded by how impenetrable, legalistic and, well, awful, most terms of use are on the internet.
I want to congratulate you and your department on NOT doing this. The new terms of use are written in clear English, well set out, and cover what seem to be the appropriate bases without being overly verbose and cautious.
Well done, Philippe, Geoff, and everyone else.
I am also impressed. It actually ends up being the best one piece introduction to what Wikimedia *is* that I have ever read. A lot of thought and consideration were soundly invested in that document. Clarity on that level is HARD, but well worth the effort. I also am thinking that the staff have just set a rather high bar for the board. Imagine if all board resolutions were written with as just as much focus on clarity and as on circumspection. These terms of use show it is possible.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte, Andrew, thank you for your kind words. True credit on this one goes to Maggie, Geoff, and the community members who worked countless hours with them and discussed in great detail almost every word of the thing. I think everyone involved would tell you that it was a thoughtful, deliberative, and truly exhausting process.... but it was amazing in its collegiality in the final product.
I'm proud to be part of the team that worked on this, but my role was small... my hat is off to Maggie, Geoff, and all the others who participated (below, I have listed everyone with more than 15 edits to the talk page where it was developed.)
Community Members with more than 15 edits to the Talk page:
Geoffbrigham Mdennis (WMF) WhatamIdoing Filceolaire FT2 Peteforsyth Michaeldsuarez Seth Finkelstein Angel54 5 Seb az86556 WereSpielChequers Steven (WMF) Rosenkohl Esetzer Wnt Teofilo Philippe (WMF) John Vandenberg Danhash Rich Farmbrough Dcoetzee 62.140.210.130 Григор Гачев
___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hi everyone,
As you may be aware, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This
updated
version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed here<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en
.[1]
A short overview of some of the changes is set out herehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use. [2]
Best wishes, Philippe
Terms of use are boring, and most of us are pretty jaded by how impenetrable, legalistic and, well, awful, most terms of use are on the internet.
I want to congratulate you and your department on NOT doing this. The new terms of use are written in clear English, well set out, and cover what seem to be the appropriate bases without being overly verbose and
cautious.
Well done, Philippe, Geoff, and everyone else.
I am also impressed. It actually ends up being the best one piece introduction to what Wikimedia *is* that I have ever read. A lot of thought and consideration were soundly invested in that document. Clarity on that level is HARD, but well worth the effort. I also am thinking that the staff have just set a rather high bar for the board. Imagine if all board resolutions were written with as just as much focus on clarity and as on circumspection. These terms of use show it is possible.
Birgitte SB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Does this new TOS mean that Chinese violate WMF TOS if they view legal US material on the Wikimedia site? In case it is against Chinese censorship laws.
I don't think it does say that, or if it does, I can't see where. You're certainly liable if you break a law in your own country, but I don't think you've broken the terms of use. It says that
"Certain activites may subject you to liabilities... [for example] using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law."
This means, to my eyes, that you're potentially liable (to someone) if you break the law in your own country - which makes perfect sense to me.
But then, I am not a lawyer, nor do I work for the WMF.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 1 May 2012 14:25, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Does this new TOS mean that Chinese violate WMF TOS if they view legal US material on the Wikimedia site? In case it is against Chinese censorship laws.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Richard, you removed some relevant language:
"Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, *you may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include: [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law."
I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult to craft language to do that well.
~Nathan
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
I don't think it does say that, or if it does, I can't see where. You're certainly liable if you break a law in your own country, but I don't think you've broken the terms of use. It says that
"Certain activites may subject you to liabilities... [for example] using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law."
This means, to my eyes, that you're potentially liable (to someone) if you break the law in your own country - which makes perfect sense to me.
But then, I am not a lawyer, nor do I work for the WMF.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Richard, you removed some relevant language:
"Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, *you may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include: [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law."
I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult to craft language to do that well.
~Nathan
Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are "anti-freedom"?
On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Richard, you removed some relevant language:
"Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, *you may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include: [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law."
I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult to craft language to do that well.
~Nathan
Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are "anti-freedom"?
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable civilly to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve compensation. If the WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally illegal things (like Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they would be open to liability that would result money going to lawyers. Really very, very few countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, including countries were WMF actually has significant assets. China is not the issue here. Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is neither wise nor ethical.
BirgitteSB
On May 3, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Richard, you removed some relevant language:
"Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, *you may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include: [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law."
I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult to craft language to do that well.
~Nathan
Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are "anti-freedom"?
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable civilly to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve compensation. If the WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally illegal things (like Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they would be open to liability that would result money going to lawyers. Really very, very few countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, including countries were WMF actually has significant assets. China is not the issue here. Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is neither wise nor ethical.
Which is all slightly different from WMF actually making technically impossible to circumvent local anti-freedom laws.
BirgitteSB
Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is neither wise nor ethical.
On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in other parts of the Terms of use which apply to /users/ (not their contributions) the USA laws where they're more restrictive. The whole section "Refraining from Certain Activities" has this problem, which is very hard to avoid given that nobody really knows what the "applicable law" is. There was a lot of work on this part as well, I'm not able to judge the results. Both problems originate from the decision to enforce via a private contract the state laws (privatization of justice or statement of the obvious? I don't know). The old ToU left everything implicit (or were reticent, depending on how you see it).
Nemo
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it,
is neither wise nor ethical.
On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in other parts of the Terms of use which apply to /users/ (not their contributions) the USA laws where they're more restrictive. The whole section "Refraining from Certain Activities" has this problem, which is very hard to avoid given that nobody really knows what the "applicable law" is. There was a lot of work on this part as well, I'm not able to judge the results. Both problems originate from the decision to enforce via a private contract the state laws (privatization of justice or statement of the obvious? I don't know). The old ToU left everything implicit (or were reticent, depending on how you see it).
Nemo
It only makes sense to be somewhat explicit about the laws that apply, since they apply regardless of their presence in the ToU.
On May 3, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it,
is neither wise nor ethical.
On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in other parts of the Terms of use which apply to /users/ (not their contributions) the USA laws where they're more restrictive. The whole section "Refraining from Certain Activities" has this problem, which is very hard to avoid given that nobody really knows what the "applicable law" is. There was a lot of work on this part as well, I'm not able to judge the results. Both problems originate from the decision to enforce via a private contract the state laws (privatization of justice or statement of the obvious? I don't know). The old ToU left everything implicit (or were reticent, depending on how you see it).
Nemo
It only makes sense to be somewhat explicit about the laws that apply, since they apply regardless of their presence in the ToU.
Not only does it make sense; but I also strongly believe that choosing ambiguity in order to preserve plausible deniability can never be the ethical choice.
We all are aware that users of the wikis are placing themselves at risk by participating. That there risk in just reading. This awareness is at the root of data retention, data sharing, and the privacy effects of new features being a perennial topic of conversation. To purposefully choose to neglect to share this awareness with the full range of users reading the terms of use, an audience much larger than this mailing list, cannot be ethical.
Perhaps some strong idealists would feel more comfortable if these unpleasant facts of reality were instead "made" implicit. If WMF's name were not signed in acknowledgement of these unpleasant realities. But I firmly believe that there is a much stronger obligation toward the flesh-and-blood users who are living in the world as it is, than toward any ideal of the perfect world that is not. But then again, I am no idealist.
Birgitte SB
Hi everyone,
I don't believe the Terms are meant to expressly adopt all foreign laws outside the United States. The community discussed the phrase "applicable law" a few times during the drafting process. The Terms of Use only expressly call out the United States as applicable law in the Overview section and section 1(b). There is no express adoption of another foreign law by name: the Terms of Use only use the word "may" for laws other than the United States, simply putting users on notice of their possible application.
Along those lines, the Terms of Use (Section 1(b)) do try to provide a fair warning to our users about their local laws and enforcement by government authorities. Specifically, the Terms say in Section 1(b): "Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content."
Furthermore, in the last paragraph of section 4, WMF reserves the discretion to enforce that section which governs certain behaviors on the sites. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the WMF wouldn't try to enforce section 4 (or any other parts of the Terms of Use) in a way that was not aligned with our mission. For example, we would never try to use the Terms against a dissident in a censored country who tries to express himself or herself truthfully and freely on-wiki, in violation of their local laws.
(As pointed out during the drafting process, this provision is consistent with other like-minded organizations' terms. Creative Commons,[0] the Internet Archive,[1] and the Open Source Initiative's[2] terms, for example, require users to comply with "applicable" laws.)
Thanks, pb
0. https://creativecommons.org/terms (Section 7) 1. http://archive.org/about/terms.php (Paragraph 3) 2. http://www.opensource.org/ToS (Section 5)
___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it,
is neither wise nor ethical.
On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in other parts of the Terms of use which apply to /users/ (not their
contributions)
the USA laws where they're more restrictive. The whole section
"Refraining
from Certain Activities" has this problem, which is very hard to avoid given that nobody really knows what the "applicable law" is. There was a lot of work on this part as well, I'm not able to judge the results. Both problems originate from the decision to enforce via a private contract the state laws (privatization of justice or statement of the obvious? I don't know). The old ToU left everything implicit (or were reticent, depending on how you see it).
Nemo
It only makes sense to be somewhat explicit about the laws that apply, since they apply regardless of their presence in the ToU. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
I don't believe the Terms are meant to expressly adopt all foreign laws outside the United States. The community discussed the phrase "applicable law" a few times during the drafting process. The Terms of Use only expressly call out the United States as applicable law in the Overview section and section 1(b). There is no express adoption of another foreign law by name: the Terms of Use only use the word "may" for laws other than the United States, simply putting users on notice of their possible application.
Along those lines, the Terms of Use (Section 1(b)) do try to provide a fair warning to our users about their local laws and enforcement by government authorities. Specifically, the Terms say in Section 1(b): "Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content."
Furthermore, in the last paragraph of section 4, WMF reserves the discretion to enforce that section which governs certain behaviors on the sites. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the WMF wouldn't try to enforce section 4 (or any other parts of the Terms of Use) in a way that was not aligned with our mission. For example, we would never try to use the Terms against a dissident in a censored country who tries to express himself or herself truthfully and freely on-wiki, in violation of their local laws.
(As pointed out during the drafting process, this provision is consistent with other like-minded organizations' terms. Creative Commons,[0] the Internet Archive,[1] and the Open Source Initiative's[2] terms, for example, require users to comply with "applicable" laws.)
Thanks, pb
I really do not want to be thought of as a --me too person-- but in this case the sentiment is well deserved. I subscribe to everything above, with all my being. Thanks.
and do not mind being told off...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org