Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[Gnangarra]

Just thought, all the solutions have been directed at the people making
money for providing the service has anyone tried contacting the companies
paying for the service, if so what was the outcome?

On 7 January 2017 at 13:41, Jacob Rogers  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
> le...@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
> .
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[Jacob Rogers]

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
le...@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
.
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Heads-up on Wikipedia Day 16 San Francisco

[J.]

Heads-up to any Wikipedia/Wikimedia peeps or interested parties that are
going to be in the SF Bay Area on Sunday, January 15, 2017 starting at 2
p.m.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/SF/Wikipedia_Day_2017

Hope you can make it. Be sure to RSVP. Cheers! Wayne Calhoon (and Ben
Creasy and Stephen LaPorte) - co-organizers.
[[User:Checkingfax]]
925-899-4051

PS: Please join in and add your edits to the event page and to its talk
page! It is a wiki! We can also use your help, if you are up to it. Put
your name somewhere on the volunteer list.
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia blog post on "The end of ownership? Rethinking digital property to favor consumers at a Yale ISP talk"

[James Salsman]

Although it is probably something innocuous such as a recent need to
moderate all comments by default, I am disappointed that my comment on
the recent Wikimedia blog post which I belive should be at
 
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/06/rethinking-digital-property-yale-isp/#comment-124999
has still not appeared. So, I am copying it here:

This is a disturbingly simplistic analysis. "Copyright holders" are
mentioned only four times, as if they are in opposition to the
consumers of their products, and without acknowledging that they are
creating the works that the consumers clearly value as evidenced by
their desire to make, lend, and sell copies of the works.

The reality of our modern information economy is that large corporate
intermediaries like Apple (iTunes), Google (YouTube, Google Books and
Music), Pandora, Spotify, and the like are given free rein to make,
monetize, and sell as many copies of artists' and authors' works as
they wish, while three federal judges on the Copyright Royalty Board
very occasionally set "compulsory license" requirements whereby they
must pay the copyright holders -- usually publishers instead of
authors and artists -- for what would otherwise be considered rampant
abuse of the constitutionally motivated copy right to advance the
useful arts and sciences. But because these compulsory royalties
rarely see the pockets of the original artists and authors, very
little incentive to create outside the corporate top-40 and celebrity
author hegemony is ever generated.

When will the Wikimedia Foundation take a stand for a more equitable
distribution of compulsory license royalties to artists and authors,
who include thousands of their own volunteers who work commercially in
addition to giving away their time which allows the Foundation's
employees to take home their paychecks?

According to Department of Labor, in the 1970s, before the advent of
mass consumer copying, the U.S. economy supported three times as many
small and emerging artists and performers. There is no reason that the
Copyright Royalty Judges can not produce an intelligent, informed,
progressive, and humane compulsory license distribution incidence
schedule which will return our culture to its former glory. Where will
the Wikimedia Foundation be on that question?

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2017 - Registration closes in two days!

[Daniela Gentner]

Dear Wikimedians,

The deadline to register for the Wikimedia Conference 2017 closes in two days!

***Please note that this reminder does NOT affect the additional
invitations regarding the Movement Strategy track that are currently
being sent out by the WMF. If you have received this invitation,
please wait for further instructions that will be shared next week.***

For getting into the mood and to enhance the anticipation for the
conference, please review the current list of participants [1].

If you want to be part of the conference as a representative of your
affiliate and haven’t registered yet, do not miss this last chance to
sign up via the registration form [2]. On January 8, 2017 this form
will be closed.

Registration from the following affiliates are still missing:

=Chapters=
Wikimedia Canada
Wikimedia Česká republika
Wikimédia France
Wikimédia Magyarország
Wikimedia Italia
Wikimedia Ukraine
Wikimedia District of Columbia
Wikimedia New York City
Wikimedia Venezuela

=User Groups=
Basque Wikimedians User Group
Esperanto kaj Libera Scio
New England Wikimedians
PhilWiki Community
Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil
Wikimedia Community Brazilian Group of Education and Research
Wikimedia Community User Group Greece
Wikimedia Community User Group Ghana
Maithili Wikimedians User Group
Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey
Wikimedians of Bulgaria User Group
Wikimedians of Colorado User Group
Wikimedians of Latvia User Group
Wikimedians of Republic of Srpska
위키미디어 대한민국 (Wikimedians of Korea)

=Allied Organizations=
Centre for Internet & Society - Access to Knowledge Program


For further information, please visit the Meta page [3].

You can reach out to us any time via wm...@wikimedia.de should you
have any questions or comments.


Best regards,

Daniela
on behalf of the WMCON organizing team


[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2017/Participants%27_List
[2] http://wmde.org/wmcon17registration link
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2017

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[Vi to]

I've just crossed
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Paulinapaulina3030 but
I must confess I won't do anything out of the wiki (it.wiki) where I am a
local sysop.
Catching crosswiki paid editing is the most frustrating activity ever, a
couple of years ago I wasted two months in defending myself against the
trolling I drew for deleting userpages of someone massively creating them
to promote a "customer".

Vito

2017-01-06 6:17 GMT+01:00 Jytdog at Wikipedia :

> Sending a cease and desist letter costs little.WMF will find many
> volunteers happy to provide what evidence they possess linking various
> companies to various articles.
>
> Yes, attempting to enforce a cease and desist letter would entail court
> costs, and that should be considered.  One thing that drives court costs is
> the resources of the other side in litigation and my sense is many of these
> individuals and their companies do not have deep pockets;  I am not sure
> how the real is the risk of litigation draining the WMF budget.
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > It's a difficult challenge.  I agree with David; on English Wikipedia, we
> > have masses and masses of articles of borderline notability that are so
> > obviously blatant spamand they have a terrible tendency to be kept at
> > Articles for Deletion.  It's a reflection of our still-optimistic outlook
> > that there are still people who believe that someone will come along and
> > magically turn the spam into something encyclopedic; the reality is that
> > those articles tend to stay pretty much as they are unless someone who
> has
> > dug up the sources that supposedly make a subject notable actually edit
> the
> > article to transform it from advertorial to encyclopedic.
> >
> > I do not know enough about how other Wikipedias handle such spam,
> although
> > I have heard from some people editing on some projects that similar
> > articles there would be speedy-deleted without a second thought. I do not
> > think that it is likely that English Wikipedia will get to that point
> > unless more people who feel strongly about spam actively participate at
> > AfD.
> >
> > As to the WMF investing in trying to track down and take down "paid
> editing
> > companies", there are a few things to keep in mind.  First, it's very
> > expensive to develop the evidence that makes the direct link from the
> spam
> > article to the real identity of the writer of the article.  Many of those
> > "companies" are individual people, and there are also plenty of people
> who
> > call themselves "advisors" who may not edit directly but facilitate
> > companies getting their spam on Wikipedia. And just finding those
> > people/organizations isn't enough - then the course of action usually
> > involves the courts (of varying jurisdictions) which means more lawyers
> and
> > more external legal fees. We're talking a lot of money here, and that's
> the
> > area where I have significant concern - a concerted effort covering the
> 10
> > largest projects could easily cost as much as the WMF's annual budget.
> One
> > more thing to keep in mind:  many courts would expect some evidence that
> > the problematic organization is causing harm to the brand and financial
> > position of Wikipedia.  That part is tough - it's almost impossible to
> > demonstrate a financial cost to Wikipedia for having a spammy article,
> > especially as such a large percentage of the articles on many projectst
> are
> > barely of "start" quality.  The fact that there is a conscious decision
> not
> > to take advantage of mitigating remedies that are already available to us
> > (such as confirmed identity or not permitting article creation until
> after
> > a certain number of edits) would also be a potential barrier to legal
> > remedies against paid editing. (I'm not advocating those changes at all,
> > just looking at it from an external perspective.)
> >
> > Is undisclosed paid editing a violation of the terms of use?  Of course
> it
> > is.  But outside of security and safety issues, the WMF has historically
> > left it to the volunteers to interpret the TOU and apply it on individual
> > projects.  Frankly, it's how the WMF manages with only a $75 million
> > budget, which is less than many similarly large and popular sites spend
> on
> > client services, let alone legal fees.  Given the longterm frustration of
> > many community members about fundraising, it may be a very tough sell
> > within our own broad community to have to raise more money for the
> purpose
> > of hiring the staff and paying the bills to address undisclosed paid
> > editing to the point that there is a genuine effect.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 5 January 2017 at 13:53, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > I should add: I spent a few months following the various AFD queues on
> > > WP lately, and MY GOODNESS THERE ARE SO MANY BLATANT SPAMMERS. What
> > >