[Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

[Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com]

On May 3, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Birgitte_sb at 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