Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-21 Thread Christophe Henner
Hi everyone,

This email is also available on meta :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#It.27s_all_for_show

Over the last few hours people asked me to re-share my mail from
January regarding paid editing and to even elaborate on it :
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/069717.html

I won't elaborate on that.

This amendment is all for show. This is the kind of amendment that is
not enforceable. It's only use is that some board of trustees will be
able to get in front of the press and vigorously claim Paid editing
is bad!.

Will it prevent people to edit without disclosing anything? No.

Will it encourage companies to embrace our values and improve articles
in fields they're experts in? No.

Will it prevent biased volunteers to edit? No.

So if we look at what our main issues are (increasing the number of
editors, increasing quality) I don't see any way where this amendment
will help us in any of this cases. And this is an issue we've had for
7 to 9 years, our projects didn't collapse. I'm really not sure why it
is needed to have such amendment now.

So, I don't care if this amendment is approved in the end, or not, as
it will be useless and non-enforceable. Instead I'll keep on working
with other people on proposing real solutions.

Though I do have a quick question for the legal team, is it ok for a
hosting organization to enforce rules that have an editorial inpact on
the services it hosts? I mean, lawyers have been trying for years to
sue Wikimedia organizations and prove that WMF has some level of
editorial control over Wikipedia. If WMF is the one deciding how a
specific set of editors must behave when editing, couldn't they use
that to prove that WMF does, indeend, have some editorial power? Much
alike an editor-in-chief chooses who's published in its paper and how
they're credited.
Best,

Christophe

___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-21 Thread Lodewijk
I don't really understand how this is a response to my question, but thanks
for the pointer anyway. It doesn't explain why we would want one rule for
all projects, it doesn't explain why we want it to be 'enforcable' in the
first place.

I'm answering also here to keep the discussion streamlined.

Best,
Lodewijk


2014-02-21 0:12 GMT+01:00 Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org:

 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
 wrote:

  Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of
 Use
  would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
 
  As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
  certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the
  same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive
  from it - either way.
 

 Hi, Lodewijk - Geoff responded to this general concern here:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Yes.2C_I_believe_it_will

 Hope that helps answer the question.

 Luis


 --
 Luis Villa
 Deputy General Counsel
 Wikimedia Foundation
 415.839.6885 ext. 6810

 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
 have received it 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.*
 ___
 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When people make information available that fits in the notability
requirements of Wikidata and, when the information is factually correct,
then I do not think that anyone really cares if the person uploading it is
gets paid for it or not.

Please explain to me why I should care.

As it is the one thing that Wikidata lacks is data. A lot of data is being
added that conforms to the notability requirements and is highly
structured. I applaud its inclusion in Wikidata because at some stage we
will have the bandwidth to link such information in the tapestry that is
Wikidata.

Wikidata is hard to understand for many people and I do welcome people who
have something to add, something that is of value. When their data is
limited in scope, it is better than not having data in the first place.
When Wikidata is found to be limited in scope (and it is) it is all the
more reason for people with opposing views / data to find their way and
enrich Wikidata's content so that a more balanced, neutral view will emerge.
Thanks,
   GerardM


On 21 February 2014 00:22, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

  Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU,
  something like The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being
  paid
  to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable
 policy
  on each project where said users contribute.? Might that be a solution
 to
  establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding
 local
  intentions?
 

 I tried to answer this on meta:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#question_about_incorporating_local_policy_.28from_Wikimedia-l.29

 Hope that clarifies a bit, given the relevant history.

 Luis

 P.S. We're replying to things on meta, since that is where the banners are
 directing people to go, and because it helps keep a history of the
 conversation in one place.

 --
 Luis Villa
 Deputy General Counsel
 Wikimedia Foundation
 415.839.6885 ext. 6810

 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
 have received it 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.*
 ___
 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-21 Thread Christophe Henner
Hi,

As people seems to follow the conversation here, I paste the
discussion I'm having with Geoff here too, otherwise people can
participate directly on meta :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#It.27s_all_for_show
d. If so, sorry I missed those changes. 

Hi everyone,
Over the last few hours people asked me to re-share my mail from January 
regarding paid editing and to even elaborate on it : 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/069717.html
I won't elaborate on that.
This amendment is all for show. This is the kind of amendment that is not 
enforceable. It's only use is that some board of trustees will be able to get 
in front of the press and vigorously claim Paid editing is bad!.
Will it prevent people to edit without disclosing anything? No.
Will it encourage companies to embrace our values and improve articles in 
fields they're experts in? No.
Will it prevent biased volunteers to edit? No.
So if we look at what our main issues are (increasing the number of editors, 
increasing quality) I don't see any way where this amendment will help us in 
any of this cases. And this is an issue we've had for 7 to 9 years, our 
projects didn't collapse. I'm really not sure why it is needed to have such 
amendment now.
So, I don't care if this amendment is approved in the end, or not, as it will 
be useless and non-enforceable. Instead I'll keep on working with other 
people on proposing real solutions.
Though I do have a quick question for the legal team, is it ok for a hosting 
organization to enforce rules that have an editorial inpact on the services 
it hosts? I mean, lawyers have been trying for years to sue Wikimedia 
organizations and prove that WMF has some level of editorial control over 
Wikipedia. If WMF is the one deciding how a specific set of editors must 
behave when editing, couldn't they use that to prove that WMF does, indeend, 
have some editorial power? Much alike an editor-in-chief chooses who's 
published in its paper and how they're credited.
Best Schiste (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Schiste. Thanks for your comments. I actually think the amendment may have 
a positive effect, and I summarize some of the reasons here. Your question on 
hosting liability is a smart one. Hosting companies can set out general rules 
in their terms of use, even when those rules affect the content of the site. 
Also this proposed amendment simply explains how to disclose an affiliation 
without any regulation on the content itself. (The terms already prohibit 
misrepresentation of an affiliation.) The proposed amendment thus would not 
affect our hosting liability exemption. Thanks. Geoffbrigham (talk) 14:26, 21 
February 2014 (UTC)

I've read the FAQ and I fail to find the positive outcome. However I
can clearly see the possible harm to our project. The projects where
created on the belief that anyone could help improve our knowledge. I
still do believe that strongly. And when I say everyone, I mean
everyone, no exclusion.Our job, as a community was to make sure the
edits where ok. Now we're shifting toward making sure the editors are
ok.How can we be surprized that we're loosing contributors when we
have that stance? Do you believe that asking people that are paid
editing to display their affiliations is going to :
* Stabilize infrastructure
* Increase participation
* Improve quality
* Increase reach
* Encourage innovation

I don't believe it will.

Actually it's a rather conservative move that will make some
companies, that would be ready to participate in good faith, feel
targeted and marked and hinder their wish to participate.

Thus preventing new contributors to join our projects and not
increasing the quality of the projects.

It will, and the question has been asked on my Facebook feed once
already, make researchers and GLAM partners ponder weither they should
or not display their affiliation.

And, I'm sure you know it, incertainity, fear and doubt are the things
you try to avoid when negociating partnerships.

So, at best this change will actually not change anything as paid
editing will still happen under the hood and no one will be able to
check everyone's affiliation. And at worse we'll lose potential
partners, or make the work of volunteers negotiating those
partnerships harder, and make it even harder to innovate with
companies to find new ways to increase our reach, participation and
quality. But perhaps our core values (everyone can edit) and the
movement strategic orientation (the five points above) have changed.
If so, sorry I missed those changes. Schiste (talk) 15:35, 21 February
2014 (UTC)
--
Christophe


On 21 February 2014 16:28, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hoi,
 When people make information available that fits in the notability
 requirements of Wikidata and, when the information is factually correct,
 then I do not think that anyone really cares if the person uploading it is
 gets 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread Dominic McDevitt-Parks
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

2014-02-20 Thread Lodewijk
Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?

As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the
same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive
from it - either way.

Kind regards,

Lodewijk


2014-02-19 23:06 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.org:

 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread HaeB
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.com wrote:
 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,
Yes, but that comparison is a mischaracterization of what the
Education Program does. Of course it does not pay (or suggest to pay)
professors to make clueless newbie edits with no experience
whatsoever in ignorance of community policies or the TOU. From its
beginning as the Public Policy Initiative, the program included
guidance for the participating instructors (e.g. training by
Ambassadors), to help them understand policies and provide training
experience, before they engage in their Wikipedia course work. That's
far from how I understood the situation that you had been evoking,
where an academic is just toying around with editing. I know you
worked as a Campus Ambassador yourself, and I'm relieved to see that
the very first edits of the professor you were supporting back then
consisted of this kind of disclosure. I sure hope she was made aware
of basic Wikipedia principles before engaging in the paid work of
teaching that Wikipedia university course.

What's more, the Education Program has since even hardcoded such
disclosure into MediaWiki, in form of the Education Program extension
for MediaWiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Courses (click through to the
course pages and look at the Instructors field in the table)

 and I doubt they were all diligent about disclosure, or that many people 
 minded.
Actually, a whole lot of people minded. The English Wikipedia
community has become quite adamant about disclosure. Last year there
was a huge community controversy about a case where one Canadian
professor was (in his own words) going 'underground' with his
Wikipedia course, refusing to take part in the Education Program
because he felt that its disclosure requirements would bring
unwarranted scrutiny by Wikipedians. IIRC, in the lengthy discussions
on the education noticeboard, no community members supported this
position.

 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.
Sure, I don't see this being disputed.

 The president of the American Historical Association wrote an article
 saying that historians have a professional obligation to do so.
If you meant to say that this article talks about day jobs:
http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2012/scholarly-authority-in-a-wikified-world
...then I think that this is misrepresenting its content - it ends
with the words Any volunteers? and says that historians should
follow the example of Scientists, engineers, and programmers [who]
have been contributing sophisticated entries to Wikipedia almost from
the beginning, certainly not as paid editors back then.

 Sue Gardner
 gave a keynote for the American Library Association suggesting the same
 thing for librarians.
Could you cite the exact wording where she was talking about editing
as part of their day jobs? (If it helps, here is the brief summary I
wrote back then for the Signpost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-27/News_and_notes
)

 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.
Dominic, nobody is trying to prohibit this kind of activity per se,
and personally I agree it can be a good thing. But if we get these
universities to write the improvement of Wikipedia into scholars' job
responsibilities (instead of those of their PR staff, many of whom
engage in problematic advocacy editing), then I can't see why adding a
sentence to one's user page would be so big of a burden. My employer
requires that btw, even though I make no paid edits to article
content.


 Second, you make it appear like every violation of the TOU is a felony
 (outlaw mistakes) and likely to be the target of legal 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread effe iets anders
it seems my email was rejected, trying to send again:

Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?

As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the
same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive
from it - either way.

Kind regards,

Lodewijk


2014-02-19 23:06 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.org:

 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread phoebe ayers
Hi all,

A few notes from my own perspective:

1) I'm glad to see this lively debate! I hope the right solution comes out
of it and is iron-clad against contingencies, insofar as possible :)

2) I don't want to see the projects used and misused as a platform to
achieve goals other than our mission of sharing free knowledge -- and, as a
part of that, I want to discourage contributions to articles that have an
end goal other than making those articles better according to objective
standards (and, of course, encourage contributions that do have the end
goal of making articles better). Though I haven't checked with legal, I
don't think that's a controversial statement :)

*How* we discourage contributions that don't fit with our own goals is the
question -- policy changes Wikimedia-wide, project-wide, something else?
This is a proposal using one of the legal tools in our toolbox, the ToU,
which is one of the very few Wikimedia-wide policies that can address
contribution standards and is also one of the very few tools that is
recognized as legally valid by outside parties (unlike for instance our
internal policies like NPOV, which are just that, editorial policies).

3) I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the
actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.

4) I'm glad to see Dominic weigh in with some issues from a GLAM
perspective. Of course I personally am interested in GLAM issues, but I
also think we collectively need to grapple with how to make the projects
friendlier towards all kinds of people with things to share, including but
not exclusively GLAMs and educators.

For my part, I would love to see a world where contributing to Wikipedia
was seen as a normal part of business for educational and cultural
institutions and the people who work there; I think that would be a win for
all of us, including the GLAMS. How to do that so we also preserve our
neutrality and values is the challenge facing us right now: and we need to
figure out specific things, like how we balance disclosure versus anonymity
for these contributors, and how we distinguish good motivations from
cluelessness or COI. I don't have a good answer for this personally, though
I have lots of thoughts (I've worked with plenty of researchers who are in
fact trying to work on Wikipedia during their paid time. And bear in mind
that for academics like professors, there's often no real line between on
the clock and off the clock -- you do work relating to your job all the
time).

Disclosure: I myself contribute hours and hours of work to Wikimedia during
my day job, including writing this email, because I've made the case to my
employer that my contributions to WMF as a trustee and volunteer can be
seen as a professional obligation, just like helping out with a library
association would be. That does not include my actual editing of Wikipedia,
which I do with my volunteer hat on and in my free time. But let's face it:
the lines are often blurry. For instance, I don't think my edits to
engineering articles are a COI simply because I also work as an engineering
librarian. But I do recognize that there are lots of different cases,
ranging from that kind of mild overlap of day-job interest and Wikipedia
work; to a researcher making an edit on a subject they study and
(unknowingly or knowingly) over-representing their own work in the
references; to someone making an edit to a company article to make it more
favorable because they were paid by the company to do so. So, having
clarity when we talk about these issues about what kind of cases we have in
mind is important.

best,
-- Phoebe

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at
gmail.com *
___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread Anders Wennersten

phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 20:16:

3) I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the
actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.


Please remember this is a description of the reality on en:wp. The reality 
looks very different on other version.

On svwp we are a group of a few hundred active contributes  where paid editors and 
volunteers have a fruitful cooperation to create valuable and neutral articles. When we 
have discussed this proposal on our Village Pump we think it would be good to have it as 
a guideline and loose recommendation but if it would become mandatory we believe it would 
actually hurt our community and work. We are not bigger than it is possible for me alone 
to inspect all new articles from nonwikipedians 24/7, and react appropriate to different 
problems in the articles, and recognizing patterns of strange edits, and 
others are able to do the same for changes in articles

So please let each project decide on how to tackle the COi issue by themselves, 
and encourage exchange on best practices in the area. But also make sure No 
mandatory restrictions on all projects on contributers like this that would 
seriously harm the work in several projects

Andes





 



___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread Nathan
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU,
something like The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being paid
to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable policy
on each project where said users contribute.? Might that be a solution to
establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding local
intentions?
___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread phoebe ayers
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Anders Wennersten 
m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:

 phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 20:16:

  3) I think this proposal is trying to addressing a long-standing issue of
 COI editing. That issue was recently brought to the forefront again by the
 actions of a few companies, but it's been an issue for a long while.


 Please remember this is a description of the reality on en:wp. The reality
 looks very different on other version.


Thanks for talking about your situation :) I do think it's right to say
this has been a concern on several projects, not only enwp, but it is true
every wiki is different.


 On svwp we are a group of a few hundred active contributes  where paid
 editors and volunteers have a fruitful cooperation to create valuable and
 neutral articles. When we have discussed this proposal on our Village Pump
 we think it would be good to have it as a guideline and loose
 recommendation but if it would become mandatory we believe it would
 actually hurt our community and work. We are not bigger than it is possible
 for me alone to inspect all new articles from nonwikipedians 24/7, and
 react appropriate to different problems in the articles, and recognizing
 patterns of strange edits, and others are able to do the same for changes
 in articles

 So please let each project decide on how to tackle the COi issue by
 themselves, and encourage exchange on best practices in the area. But also
 make sure No mandatory restrictions on all projects on contributers like
 this that would seriously harm the work in several projects


How do you seeing this as a restriction on contribution? As it is proposed
it's not saying edits will be rejected, only that contributors who are paid
to edit should note this on their userpage or in edit summaries. I think
that every edit would still be subject to the same kind of editorial
scrutiny that happens now.

(note I'm not arguing that this proposal is exactly the right answer, I
just don't follow the reasoning why you think it would restrict
contributions).

best,
-- phoebe




-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at
gmail.com *
___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread
Having led an all day workshop with different GLAM organizations in
Cornwall, fresh in my mind are the stories of woe from respected
museum professionals who have run into hot water on the English
Wikipedia by creating official looking accounts to make edits for
their institution and/or using material from their websites, including
material that they personally published.

Whatever happens to the TOU, we do need to create extremely easy to
understand guidance for GLAM professionals, preferably at the time of
account creation and initial edits.

The current system is not only confusing, but is an active deterrent,
at times permanently, for volunteers and professionals wanting to help
Wikipedia with their expertise and leaves these type of contributors a
bit embarrassed, feeling they have done something wrong and treated
like a spammer, when they are exactly the types of good faith
contributors that should be nurtured and prove invaluable for open
knowledge content creation with a small amount of support from us.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread Anders Wennersten


phoebe ayers skrev 2014-02-20 21:28:

How do you seeing this as a restriction on contribution? As it is proposed
it's not saying edits will be rejected, only that contributors who are paid
to edit should note this on their userpage or in edit summaries. I think
that every edit would still be subject to the same kind of editorial
scrutiny that happens now.
As I said we would be happy to have this as a guideline (we actually 
recommend companies to do this already and many present themself this 
way already)


But if we would start threating these users not to be welcome if they do 
not do this presentation it would make our cooperation worse and send 
some of them away. And even more if some of us by misunderstanding the 
mandatory writing started to threaten the big greyscale paid editors 
(glam people, big organizations - not being commercial compaines etc) it 
would really send a lot of valuable contributers away (and the paid 
editor are in general much better in proving sources... then 
unexperienced volunteers)


Also I think a mandatory rule like this would be taken negative by the 
general public in Sweden, where good cooperation between different 
categories of people always is seen as an ideal, and everthing hindering 
a cooperation built on trust (but also transparency) is seen as negative


Anders










___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread Luis Villa
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:

 Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
 would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?

 As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
 certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the
 same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive
 from it - either way.


Hi, Lodewijk - Geoff responded to this general concern here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Yes.2C_I_believe_it_will

Hope that helps answer the question.

Luis


-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it 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.*
___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread Luis Villa
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU,
 something like The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being
 paid
 to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable policy
 on each project where said users contribute.? Might that be a solution to
 establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding local
 intentions?


I tried to answer this on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#question_about_incorporating_local_policy_.28from_Wikimedia-l.29

Hope that clarifies a bit, given the relevant history.

Luis

P.S. We're replying to things on meta, since that is where the banners are
directing people to go, and because it helps keep a history of the
conversation in one place.

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it 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.*
___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Dominic McDevitt-Parks
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Newyorkbrad
When we were discussing an update to the COI/paid editing page on English
Wikipedia a few months ago, I posted a set of hypothetical (but not all
that hypothetical) situations to help guide the discussion.  I've copied
and updated that question set and posted it to the talkpage of the meta
discussion, in the hopes that it might be useful there too in ensuring that
any proposal addresses real situations that arise in a sensible way.

Link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Hypothetical_.28but_not_all_that_hypothetical.29_examples_for_discussion

Regards,
Newyorkbrad



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.comwrote:

 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
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread MZMcBride
A copy of the proposed additional language:

---
Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including
misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure
compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer,
client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia
Projects for which you receive compensation. You must make that disclosure
in at least one of the following:

* a statement on your user page,
* a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
* a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies, such as those
addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or
require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our
background note on disclosure of paid contributions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#
paidtoufaq.
---

And a snippet from the Meta-Wiki page:

---
Our Terms of Use already prohibit engaging in deceptive activities,
including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To
ensure compliance with these provisions, this amendment provides specific
minimum disclosure requirements for paid contributions on the Wikimedia
Projects.
---

Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
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.)

My reaction was roughly the same as yours regarding who's proposing this
change. It's curious that the Wikimedia Foundation legal team wants to
propose this as a Terms of Use change rather than, say, creating or
clarifying a Wikimedia Foundation employee policy. This is already being
referred to as the Stierch amendment, of course.

MZMcBride



___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread HaeB
Hi Dominic,

2014-02-19 18:46 GMT-08:00 Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com:
 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.

Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.

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?).

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.

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.


 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.)
Me neither ;) Although I work for the Foundation in my day job, I have
also been a volunteer editor for a decade now, and I'm speaking as
such here. Over the years I have lost a lot of time trying to maintain
NPOV in articles that were subject to (as it would turn out later)
undisclosed paid editing, and turned away in frustration from many
others 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread rupert THURNER
stephen,

i think it would be wiser to tackle this technically. let mark a
contribution as COI when pressing save. the community will make something
out of it, you can be sure. if a person makes too often errors not marking
that an edit is COI, then its easy to make a community backed rule to ban
the person from the projects for not complying. one can also make a rule
that only 5% of a persons edits are allowed to be COI and the editor
numbers would go up.

but i understand,  your job is in the legal department, so you are only
allowed to produce text, not code, which is a pity :( but please do not
forget, if you write one line of text, there are thousands who read it, and
it might be used in legal hassles - which is not at the core of the free
in the wikimedia vision and mission.

rupert.



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-19 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

HaeB, 20/02/2014 06:56:

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.


Indeed. The reality is that it's a criminal offense, at least in USA, 
and any attorney with enough hate for the world can prosecute you until 
you commmit suicide.


Nemo

___
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