Just want to note that in my OP I had linked to an ANI thread (now archived
here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#Earflaps>)
about the discovery of a long term paid editor; the same editors who found
that, have found another -- this time the editor had 70K edits on en-wiki.
ANI thread is here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=758846199#Proposal_to_ban_FoCuSandLeArN_due_to_undisclosed_paid_editing>.
They edited on behalf of Banc de Binary, Alcoa, and some other big
players. It appears that this editor worked for
.
Is WMF in discussions with that company, and companies like it, with regard
to following the ToU? If not, why not?
What if WMF started a list similar to Beall's list of Predatory Publishers,
of companies that advertise editing WP for pay for which there is no
evidence of them complying with the ToU? It would also be useful to list
editors associated with the companies who have been blocked or banned by
one or more WP communities (this would take some delicate work). Beside
this sort of public list (which people who want to hire paid editors would
probably appreciate being able to check), such companies could also be sent
a letter informing them of the ToU and telling them to stop using the WP
name until they start complying with the ToU - including the
blocking/banning policies - and you could link that letter in the list.
There are things the WMF could be doing that the community cannot.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <jytdogtemp1(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for your note, Jacob.
It is great to know that WMF is happy to help with specific on-Wiki
issues, working from the ground up, as it were. Yes members of the
community are constantly playing whack-a-mole to deal with specific
incidents.
The reason I asked the original question, is that from the point of view
of myself and some other editors, the WMF could do a lot to address paid
editing by acting where *only* it can - from the top down. Namely,
taking efforts to prevent companies from using the Wikipedia name to
advertise services that are performed in violation of the Terms of Use.
That would go for both companies that provide editing services and
companies that allow freelancers to connect with customers.
With those companies freely (and often mockingly) advertising their
services, the spigot is opened wide - they constantly get more customers
and send people here to edit. I would like to know if legal is
authorized to take action to cut that flow off from the top. To close the
spigot.
If legal is not authorized to take such action, I would like to know why.
Is it that the board and management have not talked through this, or that
they have talked through and decided not to do it?
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Jacob Rogers <jrogers(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi all,
I want to share a few thoughts on the paid editing issue. First of all, we
do have the ability to enforce our terms of use. If there are cases where
you're encountering a severe problem with paid editing and community
efforts are not able to solve it, please get in touch with us via
legal(a)wikimedia.org and we can discuss how we can provide support
depending
on the details of the case. With apologies, I'm not able to discuss
details
of any specific cases here because we don't want to reveal information
about ongoing or future investigations or legal actions.
In general, I do want to say a few words about the role of legal tools in
these kinds of cases. Legal actions are a blunt instrument: courts use the
same solutions to every problem, and have not kept up with the speed of
modern technology. So we are interested in helping to improve community
systems and technological tools (like tools to help admins investigate and
block problematic users) that can make it so that legal action isn't
necessary in many cases.
I also want to note that we've been working on a longer statement
outlining
some of our thoughts about our role in dealing with paid editing concerns
and some ways the communities can effectively approach these issues as
well. We plan to post this on-wiki soon.
Lastly, let me say thank you to all the community members who help out
with
these issues. We really appreciate everyone who reports cases to us and
helps us take action where we are able, such as reporting some job
postings
on third-party sites.
Best,
Jacob Rogers
--
Jacob Rogers
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please
see
our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>