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 :
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 : 
>>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)

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 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>

Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to