Please remember to:
For older conversations you can see the archive index.
The (relatively new), peer-edited service Terms of Service; Didn't Read seems to give Wiki*edia a lower rating than it might. For instance, its output is reported through the DuckDuckGo browser extension as "Unknown Privacy Practices," which inaccurate. But, I'm not sure if DuckDuckGo is getting the most up-to-date information; for instance, looking at Wikipedia's entry, it has more granular information, under a heading that states they haven't sufficiently reviewed the terms yet.
I'm no expert, but I believe the concern about tracking technologies is overstated -- it seems to me that Wikimedia sites are incredibly conservative and thoughtful in their use of these, and are perhaps getting a negative rating as a result of being more upfront about what little tracking technology they do use. (If my beliefs are out of date, though, I'd like to know about that too.) I think this criticism is unfounded, as the entire point of wiki sites is to publish indelible public information; it's not a secret side effect like it might be on some other sites. This criticism (which appears to have a lower value) also seems inappropriate, since Wikimedia's global nature is an inherent and important part of its identity. Etc.
I've only just begun exploring this, but I think it would be worthwhile to have more eyes on it, and maybe send a well-informed suggestion (or edit) their way. Ideally, I think it would be worthwhile to have both WMF staff and volunteer attention on this. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Clarification: This service has been around since at least 2012, so my statement that it's "relatively new" was inaccurate. I think what is new is the partnership with DuckDuckGo, the exposure that goes along with it, and the resulting volunteer editing. Regardless, I think as an increasingly visible project, this deserves from attention from anyone who cares about Wikimedia's reputation for user-facing policy. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a nice service worth contributing to. Until a few years ago they mostly focused on the largest social networks and similar commercial services, it's good news if they now manage to cover more. It would be especially good if we managed to highlight how different we are from others in terms of (non) appropriation of the users' copyright. Nemo 08:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Amend 7b here, in order to correctly comply with 4c(iv) & 4a of CC SA-BY 3.0?Edit
- "Attribution: ... When you contribute text, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions:"
I suggest the above be changed to the following, in order to resolve the issue highlighted here:
- "Attribution: ... When you contribute text, you agree that being attributed in any of the following fashions, is sufficient author credit for all forms of re-use of your contribution:"
Optionally, text like the following can also be added to 7b:
- "In particular, your agreement to this term means that you and Wikipedia jointly request re-users of your contributions licensed under CC SA-BY 3.0, to not include credits in accordance with 4(c) of CC SA-BY 3.0, other than as stipulated in this term in those situations where re-users would prefer to only include credits in one of the ways specified in this term."
Just did a document comparison with the terms on foundation.wikimedia.org. They are virtually the same. This is not good for users. To prevent a user unnecessarily reading these terms twice (each reading being something of an effort given their length), it should be clear that these two terms documents are one and the same. This is probably best done by deleting these terms, and linking to the other terms.
🔗 ← More advice on Wiki Foundation terms.