Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use
On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB haebw...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown. I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do want to clarify some of my points. First, IANAL, but an academic ... who makes their first tentative edit or other normal newbies will most likely not fall under that provision, unless they are instructed by their employer to make that edit (but then, why would an organization such as an university spend money to pay someone for work in which that person has no experience whatsoever?). I know that you are familiar with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program, which did exactly what you are suggesting is so bizarre. Yes, many professors over the years have made their first edits as part of their paid work of teaching university courses, and I doubt they were all diligent about disclosure, or that many people minded. And it's not hard to imagine other activities an academic, with a professional mandate to provide public education, could legitimately perform on Wikimedia as part of their day job. The president of the American Historical Association wrote an article saying that historians have a professional obligation to do so. Sue Gardner gave a keynote for the American Library Association suggesting the same thing for librarians. I believe the reason universities and scholars would do this sort of thing and receive compensation for it is that, like an academic's normal day job, it serves the public interest. These are all mainstream and fairly well-understood concepts within the Wikimedia community, even though they entail (non-advocacy) paid editing. Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony (outlaw mistakes) and likely to be the target of legal action. In my observation as a longtime editor, the reality is different. As a comparison, the terms of use also forbid copyright infringement and require proper attribution of content. Yet as we all know, newbie mistakes in that area are very common, and even many experienced editors violate [[WP:CWW]] without facing major consequences or lawsuits ;) However, that doesn't mean at all that we should drop these requirements - they help us achieving our goal of building a body of knowledge that can be freely shared and reused. I appreciate that you think I am overreacting, but you are putting words in my mouth--I clearly understand that a Wikimedia TOU is not a legislative action by the government, and I was only suggesting that the WMF would be making a rule, not a literal law. By dismissing me in that way, you have ignored my real point, which is that the proposed text sets up a situation in which any reasonable, well-intentioned new paid editor is naturally likely to violate the site's TOU. That is not itself a reason not to have such a clause in a TOU, but it does seem like it would contribute to the feeling that Wikipedia is overly rule-bound and unwelcoming to newcomers. Last, you vehemently object to the text mentioning that people will be subject to 'applicable law'(!). Well, the Foundation doesn't make these laws, and not mentioning them in the TOU doesn't make them go away. They are not mere stumbling blocks that WMF can remove in order to make the life of GLAM professionals a bit easier. You should instead complain to the FTC or the other (non-US) legal institutions mentioned in the FAQ about this point. I did not anywhere advocate for making laws go away, or thinking that this is a TOU's role. Any person is always bound by all applicable laws in anything they do, as you say. The fact that there may be an applicable law does not necessitate making a TOU to state that unless it is constructive in some way to do so. Instead, the discussions about this topic, even on this mailing list, often see heavy participation by the minority of community members who do, or have done, professional PR work or paid work related to content contribution, often without disclosing it in these discussions. It doesn't appear anyone described by the above sentence has weighed in here yet (nor did such people dominate the recent Paid editing v. paid advocacy thread), unless that is aimed at me. You probably won't be surprised to hear that, from my perspective, these discussions are seem to suffer from the conflation paid advocacy and paid editing in pursuit of Wikimedia's mission. This discussion shows how the proposal promotes that same conflation, except it is all undisclosed paid editing that is now the enemy, still with no regard as to whether it is advocacy or not. The goal in this discussion should not be to say why paid advocacy is bad. That is a given for most people. The point of the discussion is to establish what good this proposal for the TOU would do for Wikimedia's mission, and if it is worth the potential harm. Dominic ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but different concepts). My writing (and disclosure)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dominic/FAQ was brought up on this list last time the issue came up as a model of good behavior. I always advocate transparency and disclosure of affiliation when edits are done as part of work duties, and only making edits that serve Wikimedia's own mission, not just self-interest. Having said that, this proposal seems awful. It appears to outlaw mistakes. All failures to disclose affiliation are deceptive according to the language, regardless of whether it is done in good faith or bad. I would never have interpreted the current TOU's language to mean that omission is the same thing as misrepresentation in all cases. That includes edits from newbies, or those editing under the assumption presumption that Wikimedia grants users unconditional privacy. I think about every GLAM professional or academic ever who makes their first tentative edit, and maybe just adds a link or uploads a historical image. Or maybe they made a valid, but self-interested comment on a talk page (like Actually, the library has 4 branches, not 3). Now, they don't just face the problem of getting reverted/warned if they've done something wrong; they have violated the site's terms of use as well. And will be subject to applicable law(!) As if there aren't enough potential stumbling blocks for contributors with subject matter expertise or from underserved communities. I see this being invoked more often in toxic ways than constructive ones, since more nuanced community policies are already in place on major projects. You said on the talk page in response to someone's concern about those types of desirable contributions that In fact, Wikipedians in Residence usually explain their affiliation on their user page (consistent with this provision), and exemplify some of the best practices for transparency and disclosure. I'm you view us so favorably, but I think it's important to point out that good Wikipedians are not born that way. And they probably didn't learn their good practices from the terms of use. And I'm not sure how to make it better. What value does this even serve the movement? I can't understand from the background information why there is the need to resolve the problem of conflict of interest through a Wikimedia-wide terms of use change, especially such a rigid one, when local policies are already in place. (Or, if they are not in place, perhaps it has more to do with the fact that not all Wikimedia projects even face the same problems of neutrality as Wikipedia.) I don't question that conflicts of interest are a valid concern, and I am sure this proposal was probably written with more clear-cut cases of profit motives in mind, but it seems more like an overreach than any kind of solution. Dominic (Note, I wasn't paid to make this mailing list post.) On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello all, We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and we welcome further translations and discussion in any language. For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background information here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment Please join the discussion on the talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments. -- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.* ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't just scanning a vandal or persistent sockpuppeteer's IP for other accounts) are performed because there is some amount of uncertainty. Not all checks are positive, and a negative result doesn't necessarily mean the check was unwarranted. I think those who have been checked without a public request deserve not to have suspicion cast on them by public logs if the check did not produce evidence of guilt. At the same time, because even justified checks will often upset the subject, the CheckUser deserves to be able to act on valid suspicions without fear of retaliation. The community doesn't need the discord that a public log would generate. That's not to say that there should be no oversight, but that a public log is not the way to do it. Dominic On 6/14/12 6:34 PM, En Pine wrote: Nathan, I’d like to respond to all three of your recent comments. Can you explain how this is so? I did a fair amount of work at SPI as a clerk, and I'm not sure I understand how the mere fact that a check was performed is giving sockpuppeters a roadmap for how to avoid detection. If you mean they could test the CU net by running a bunch of socks on different strategies to see which get checked and which don't, that seems like a lot of work that a vanishingly small number of abusers would attempt... and also basically the same information as they would receive when those sock accounts are ultimately blocked or not blocked per CU. ~Nathan I think you might be amazed that the persistence and sophistication of some individuals. I personally haven’t dealt with them much on-wiki, but I’ve certainly seen them on IRC. Here are some problems with that rationale: 1) If a sock confirmation results from a CU check, the person is blocked, which is a pretty big tip off all its own. If a case is filed at SPI, then tons of evidence is submitted, then a CU check is performed in public, then a block is or is not imposed. That whole process is a pretty big tip off too, but we haven't shut it down for providing a road map to abusers. You are correct that the start of the CU case is public at the time of filing at WP:SPI. The identity of the CU is also public when it is run for those filed cases. I believe that we are discussing in this thread are instances of the CU tool being used, or data from the tool being used and shared among functionaries who are permitted access to private data, when that use or sharing is not made publicly known at WP:SPI. I am not a Checkuser but perhaps someone who is a Checkuser can give some examples of situations when this happens. I personally know of at least two scenarios. 2) You can't dispute the use of CU on your information if you don't know that it was used. It's kind of like secret wiretapping with a FISA warrant; if you never know you've been wiretapped, how are you supposed to challenge it or know whether it was used improperly? As for various groups can investigate, to some extent that's true. Most of them are checkusers, however, and they still tend not to disclose all relevant information. I'm not saying that any CU is doing anything improper or that it's likely, but such allegations have been made in the past, and it seems like a pretty cut and dried case of people having a right to know how their own information is being used. If Wikimedia were based in Europe, it would most likely be required by law. Nathan When you use Wikipedia, information about what you do is logged. The same is true for other websites. In most cases on the internet in general, it’s impossible for the average user to know if their information has been used or disclosed in a way that is contrary to the site’s privacy policy. Sometimes misuse or preventable, improper disclosure of private data is made publicly known, as has happened with many online services being hacked for credit card or password information. The reality on the internet is that generally the information you provide can’t be guaranteed to remain private and secure. It is true that there can be abuses of investigative tools like CU, search warrants, and almost anything else. The best that can be done is to take reasonable precautions and to be careful about what you disclose in the first place, for the people who are trusted with special investigative tools to be honest and competent, to have sufficient “separation of powers” to help as much as possible to verify that the investigators are honest and competent, and for there to be penalties for investigators who misuse their authority. Regarding the investigative use of private information, as I think others have said also, sometimes there may be a good reason to keep an active
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't just scanning a vandal or persistent sockpuppeteer's IP for other accounts) are performed because there is some amount of uncertainty. Not all checks are positive, and a negative result doesn't necessarily mean the check was unwarranted. I think those who have been checked without a public request deserve not to have suspicion cast on them by public logs if the check did not produce evidence of guilt. At the same time, because even justified checks will often upset the subject, the CheckUser deserves to be able to act on valid suspicions without fear of retaliation. The community doesn't need the discord that a public log would generate. That's not to say that there should be no oversight, but that a public log is not the way to do it. Dominic On 6/14/12 6:34 PM, En Pine wrote: Nathan, I’d like to respond to all three of your recent comments. Can you explain how this is so? I did a fair amount of work at SPI as a clerk, and I'm not sure I understand how the mere fact that a check was performed is giving sockpuppeters a roadmap for how to avoid detection. If you mean they could test the CU net by running a bunch of socks on different strategies to see which get checked and which don't, that seems like a lot of work that a vanishingly small number of abusers would attempt... and also basically the same information as they would receive when those sock accounts are ultimately blocked or not blocked per CU. ~Nathan I think you might be amazed that the persistence and sophistication of some individuals. I personally haven’t dealt with them much on-wiki, but I’ve certainly seen them on IRC. Here are some problems with that rationale: 1) If a sock confirmation results from a CU check, the person is blocked, which is a pretty big tip off all its own. If a case is filed at SPI, then tons of evidence is submitted, then a CU check is performed in public, then a block is or is not imposed. That whole process is a pretty big tip off too, but we haven't shut it down for providing a road map to abusers. You are correct that the start of the CU case is public at the time of filing at WP:SPI. The identity of the CU is also public when it is run for those filed cases. I believe that we are discussing in this thread are instances of the CU tool being used, or data from the tool being used and shared among functionaries who are permitted access to private data, when that use or sharing is not made publicly known at WP:SPI. I am not a Checkuser but perhaps someone who is a Checkuser can give some examples of situations when this happens. I personally know of at least two scenarios. 2) You can't dispute the use of CU on your information if you don't know that it was used. It's kind of like secret wiretapping with a FISA warrant; if you never know you've been wiretapped, how are you supposed to challenge it or know whether it was used improperly? As for various groups can investigate, to some extent that's true. Most of them are checkusers, however, and they still tend not to disclose all relevant information. I'm not saying that any CU is doing anything improper or that it's likely, but such allegations have been made in the past, and it seems like a pretty cut and dried case of people having a right to know how their own information is being used. If Wikimedia were based in Europe, it would most likely be required by law. Nathan When you use Wikipedia, information about what you do is logged. The same is true for other websites. In most cases on the internet in general, it’s impossible for the average user to know if their information has been used or disclosed in a way that is contrary to the site’s privacy policy. Sometimes misuse or preventable, improper disclosure of private data is made publicly known, as has happened with many online services being hacked for credit card or password information. The reality on the internet is that generally the information you provide can’t be guaranteed to remain private and secure. It is true that there can be abuses of investigative tools like CU, search warrants, and almost anything else. The best that can be done is to take reasonable precautions and to be careful about what you disclose in the first place, for the people who are trusted with special investigative tools to be honest and competent, to have sufficient “separation of powers” to help as much as possible to verify that the investigators are honest and competent, and for there to be penalties for investigators who misuse their authority. Regarding the investigative use of private information, as I think others have said also, sometimes there may be a good reason to keep an
