Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2012-01
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Customised version of the summary for each project
| addressed |
|---|
|
This follows from the discussion above re adding an intro to the summary but it's a slightly different proposal so I'm putting it in a separate section. The English language terms of use is carefully crafted to apply to all the projects. Even if some projects have a translation nevertheless it is the english original which applies. Given this perhaps we should encourage the language editions to just translate the summary - not the entire Terms of use. While we are about it we could customise the summary to refer to the project where it is linked from by name instead of saying 'project'.
(and should 'adhere to the' be changed to 'comply with these'?) The bit in italics being customised to suit--Filceolaire 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
That will still leave this clause in the summary: Terms of Use — You adhere to the Terms of Use and to the policies for each project. Perhaps this could be rewritten as Project policies - In addition to these Terms of Use you also comply with the policies which have been developed by our community of volunteers for the various Projects and for their different languages editions. Filceolaire 14:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Second concern in this area
The whole thing about "You must adhere to TOU and any local project policies" (however it's worded) raises a second, much more serious, concern. Responsible users will probably ask (and others will surely wonder) "where are the policies". Anyone who knows a project like English Wikipedia know how badly and immediately this might overwhelm or confuse a newcomer and put them off before their first edit. I guess many other projects are the same.
While short versions exist, newcomers almost inevitably meet some point they didn't know about, often badly. There's no hope of fixing this in the short term. So although we want to, we realistically can't say "follow community policies" in the summary because if asked we can't necessarily list what those are.
I think there's a way round it that's better in all ways. At least, pragmatically. The basic premise of Wiki is that if a user acts sensibly they should be able to learn local policies piecemeal (eg from other users when they get it wrong). So maybe try this as an alternative approach which needs refining and shortening, but in principle it's at least much more workable and points newcomers the right direction:
- Follow policies — You follow these Terms of Use. In addition, [when visiting our sites or participating in our communities,] you carefully note any comments from other users explaining our other Policies, and try to follow them.
FT2 (Talk | email) 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think what we've got is okay. No, we can't feasibly provide links to the local community's policies when we're on a page at a different website. But we can let them know that local policies exist, and let them use the local resources (e.g., search tools and welcome messages) at each project to find them. WhatamIdoing 22:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Saying "You must follow" something that we can't explain when asked is a dead end. Our policies ("complex undefinable walls of text") also form a major deterrent for newcomers, even before we put them in a summary that newcomers are asked to agree to.
- I think what we've got is okay. No, we can't feasibly provide links to the local community's policies when we're on a page at a different website. But we can let them know that local policies exist, and let them use the local resources (e.g., search tools and welcome messages) at each project to find them. WhatamIdoing 22:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's much better to say "If users say a policy exists, take careful note", which has exactly the effect we want, and is also completely reasonable. It means as they edit, they aren't encumbered or told "learn all this first". If they get told something's not okay, we don't allow that, that's when they need to know the relevant policy - it covers all policies, of any kind, that they knock into. As soon as they need to know something in a policy, it's very likely a user will tell them.
- Follow TOU and heed what others tell you. That's all we actually need to ask of them, and it's so much easier. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the present language. We tell users that they "should" follow the policies (Overview), and we explain enforcement mechanisms if they don't (Section 10). We also see similar language in other user agreements. See, e.g., eBay ("When using particular services on our sites, you are subject to any posted policies or rules applicable to services you use through the sites, which may be posted from time to time. All such policies or rules are hereby incorporated into this User Agreement."); Yahoo ("when using particular Yahoo! owned or operated services, you and Yahoo! shall be subject to any posted guidelines or rules applicable to such services, which may be posted and modified from time to time"). Finally, though I appreciate their thoughtfulness, these comments are beyond deadline. It would be unfair to those following the conversation previously to change the document significantly at this time. Geoffbrigham 14:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- FT2, we can "explain when asked". What we can't do is provide a single, magic link in this document that will take the user to the complete list of all relevant (and only relevant) policies. They'll actually have to go to the trouble of asking if they want an explanation.
- Besides: how many times have you seen a user assert nonsense and claim it's a policy? If you want an example, check the recent archives on this page, where the user is pretending that his persistent block evasion is okay, because he doesn't believe that the block was legitimate in the first place. "Trust that 100% of other users know what they're talking about" is IMO a bad idea. WhatamIdoing 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we can explain. For this purpose, I'm going to be a good-faith newcomer. I read the TOU summary. (Most newcomers won't read the full document, which is fine as long as they accept they are bound by it). It says I must comply with TOU - fine - and project policies. So I ask "what are project policies".
- What's your answer to me? A wall of text that scares me off? A statement that you can't explain but I'll find out when I bang into them? A simplified version that when I find one of 10,000 other policies or arcane rules I feel aggrieved you didn't tell me? Links to a list of policies that I go "oh my god, I can't read that"? It just doesn't work.
- Now take a step back. Forget we're drafting TOU here. Go back to wiki-basics in the hypothetical golden days when there were 20 policies 1/2 a page long (I think that was about January 16 2001!) and "use commonsense and enjoy contributing" was the golden rule of wiki. The rule then – and unlike many rules, this one hasn't changed at all in 11 years – is that we invite users to edit in good faith without worrying, and if they happen to do something wrong, we'll tell them. At that point we expect them to take the point on board, be it "avoid original research" or "don't make personal attacks", whatever it is.
- Even in en:wp, the wiki with the most intricate and inchoate rules of all, TOU forbid the core "wrongs". There is literally nothing a user can do, if they are complying with TOU, that would get them a summary block/ban without at least a warning saying "that's not okay, please don't do that, this is the policy we have". So let's take advantage of that and think laterally.
- The aim is they comply with policies. Rather than say "comply with policies" which is what we want but doesn't help them (newcomers can't check out all policies, they will often be disheartened and give up if they try, and they have no idea how they work in practice), why not tell them comply with TOU (which deals with the egregious "instant ban" things like vandalism, harassment, malware, illegal material, privacy breach, copyvios, etc), and from then on, just heed what other users tell them and try to follow policies when they are told about them. That achieves the exact end we're after - anything that's a problem is either in TOU or they'll get a user post saying what they need to take note of for future. if they don't hit a problem they don't yet need to know our policy. For example, a user who doesn't post copyvios or doesn't make personal attacks anyway might enjoy reading copyright or NPA policy but is in compliance with these policies even if they never read them. That user, posting a copyvio or making an attack, and warned about it, that's the point they need to know there's a policy and take heed. Until then, why burden them with the policies we have that may never matter to them (and if they do they'll hear about it at the time anyway).
- Hence my logic. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that complicated, even on the English Wikipedia. The new user says, "What are the policies?" And we reply, "All the policies are listed in en:Category:Wikipedia policy." We might go on to suggest a trip through en:Wikipedia:Introduction or the like, but once you're on a specific project/edition, identifying the actual policies is very easy. WhatamIdoing 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please, just tell me you understand how offputting and singularly unhelpful that link would be...? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- In case someone really explicitly asks, that is the helpful and comprehensive answer. If I go to a restaurant and ask for their nutritional information, I expect to be handed a complete table with all the values and percentages; otherwise I wouldn't ask. I certainly wouldn't want to hear "oh, yeah, I think there's, uhh, let's see, some fat in it, and probably some sugar, but why don't you just try it and see what happens?" Seb az86556 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- We're discussing blocks and bans here; that example is closer to discussing style or simple content edits. If you were going to visit some country and there was a warning at the border Be aware you must follow our laws here. Some laws could result in you being executed, paying unlimited fines, or having your possessions confiscated, you'd be very unhappy with a "why not just try it" answer. If you asked for details and were handed a convoluted 500 page "legal code" which seems to have an incredible range of topics, new stuff added or appear at random and lacked a clear summary, would you be reassured and as likely to visit? Not I.
- In case someone really explicitly asks, that is the helpful and comprehensive answer. If I go to a restaurant and ask for their nutritional information, I expect to be handed a complete table with all the values and percentages; otherwise I wouldn't ask. I certainly wouldn't want to hear "oh, yeah, I think there's, uhh, let's see, some fat in it, and probably some sugar, but why don't you just try it and see what happens?" Seb az86556 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please, just tell me you understand how offputting and singularly unhelpful that link would be...? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that complicated, even on the English Wikipedia. The new user says, "What are the policies?" And we reply, "All the policies are listed in en:Category:Wikipedia policy." We might go on to suggest a trip through en:Wikipedia:Introduction or the like, but once you're on a specific project/edition, identifying the actual policies is very easy. WhatamIdoing 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- By contrast change the notice to Please follow these basic points (TOU) and if you are told an action of yours is against our laws, please pay attention, it's much easier.
- That said I can live with Geoff's wording. Just responding here to clarify the difference, in case this discussion (currently left open) resumes. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Geoff. I'm back again. I went back to check exactly what the Terms of use say about project policies.
- The Summary says:
Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.
- Section 11 Resolutions and project policies says
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable.
- I can't find anything outside the summary about the "community policies" (i.e. developed by the comunity; not the policies imposed by board resolutions. I think section 11 needs to be expanded a bit so that, at the very least, it covers the same ground as the summary. I would like FT2's proposed wording included too.
Please follow these basic points (TOU) and if you are told an action of yours is against our laws, please pay attention.
- or maybe this should be in section 4. Filceolaire 17:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we are fine with our present draft (which is with the Board). Remember that the summary is not binding and is meant as simply a high-level guide. The summary only refers to "applicable" community policies. We mention the importance of community policies in the Overview section and Section 10. For example, we say in the Overview section: "The community undertakes the critical function of creating and enforcing policies for the specific Project editions (such as the different language editions for the Wikipedia Project or the Wikimedia Commons multi-lingual edition)." In Section 10 we say: "The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies." Section 11 is intended to be restricted to Board resolutions (i.e., Foundation policies). So I think asking in the summary that the user adhere to the TOS and "applicable" community policies captures our points at a high level. Every year or so, we may wish to consider amendments to the TOS, and, if we find this is not working, we always can put it on that list of things to change. Thanks for the discussion. Geoffbrigham 11:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
practical example
On the English Wikipedia we have a practical example being raised as to how the terms of Use will change policy making. en:Wikipedia_talk:Follow the_principle_of_least_astonishment#If_you reject_the_Resolution.2C_you_are in violation_of_WMF.27s_.28future.29_Terms_of_Use.2C_and_thus_you_may_be_banned. I think I know the answer. But please could we have clarification from the WMF as to whether these terms of use mean that we will have to accept Foundation policy decisions without discussion, and whether editors will be banned for breaching such Foundation policy, for not enforcing it or for arguing against it? Thanks. WereSpielChequers 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Follow_the_principle_of_least_astonishment&action=history – Disclaimer: The WMF didn't have a hand in crafting en:Wikipedia:Follow_the_principle_of_least_astonishment. In fact, the page appears to have been crafted by users partial to a related conflict. --Michaeldsuarez 15:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- IMO—and I realize that WSC is hoping for a response from a WMF staff member—it's clear in the TOU that:
- all users need to comply with all relevant Board resolutions, including the POLA-related resolution,
- the WMF staff has far better things to do with their time than to ban people over routine disputes (see "The community has the primary role in creating and enforcing policies applying to the different Project editions" and "We rarely intervene" and "We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms", etc.), and
- the WMF's focus is on "especially problematic users", which group is never going to include people like WSC, anyone involved in isolated incidents, or people making good-faith suggestions about how to improve or interpret the Foundation-level policies (even if the suggestion for "improving" a policy is "getting rid of it entirely").
- People at en.wiki are likely to call this particular Board resolution "business as usual", by the way, since en.wiki is already generally anti-shock images and pro-educational value. The complaints about it appear to be specific to the one local dispute (which IMO the Board resolution doesn't prescribe any particular solution to, the hopes of the pro-POLA side notwithstanding), and the outrage of a very small number of users who suddenly discovered that the Board actually has the power to create policies for the Board's websites (as they have in multiple instances, usually dealing with serious legal issues).
- I'd also like to second what Michael says: The particular proposed guideline (which is a surprisingly advice-free advice page) that WSC links to isn't the Board resolution. There is no requirement to support that particular proposal, and you will not find my name among its supporters. In fact, given its practically advice-free content, I'm not sure how anyone could either "comply with" or "violate" that page in practice. WhatamIdoing 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why are u so sincere, that u (and especially u) are allowed to talk in the name of the WMF? Did anybody give u the specific right to do so?--Angel54 5 20:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- IMO—and I realize that WSC is hoping for a response from a WMF staff member—it's clear in the TOU that:
- I do not speak in the name of the WMF. WhatamIdoing 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think WhatamIdoing's points are useful in understanding this issue. Section 11 is the section that addresses Board resolutions. As explained in that Section, "[s]ome of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable." However, in practice, the Board - which includes representatives from the community - is careful in its use of mandatory language in their resolutions, seeking instead consideration of certain factors by the community (without mandating adherence to them). See, e.g., BLP resolution ("urges the global Wikimedia community") & Images of identifiable people resolution ("urges the global Wikimedia community"). In the Overview section and Section 10, we emphasize (as pointed out by WhatamIdoing) that the community - not WMF - has the primary enforcement role. Section 10 says, for example: "The community has the primary role in creating and enforcing policies applying to the different Project editions." I believe this language indicates that we are not proposing a change in present practice; legally, WMF has always had the right to enforce policies, but, as a matter of practice, WMF leaves the daily management and enforcement to the community, given the importance and value of the community's expertise, judgment and wisdom. Section 10 in the TOS indeed solidifies the primary role of the community in the creation and enforcement of the policies. Geoffbrigham 12:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The terms of use are now before the WMF Board of Trustees for consideration
After an internal review, WMF staff will be proposing no additional changes or amendments to the proposed terms of use. I therefore recommended that the Board replace the present terms of use with the proposed terms of use. That recommendation was forwarded to the Board today for consideration. Many thanks again for everyone's hard work on this project. Geoffbrigham 23:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
| Communication sent to Board |
|---|
|
Background For more than 140 days, the Wikimedia community reviewed, drafted, and redrafted the terms of use with more than 200 edits modifying the original proposal. While accumulating 19,000 page views, community members offered comments, edits, and rewrites. Complete or partial translations appeared in 20+ languages. With over 4500 lines of text and as many words as Steinbeck’s classic “The Grapes of Wrath,” discussion helped ensure a thoughtful process. These proposed terms of use are intended to replace our present version. It is not commonly known that our present terms are nothing more than a licensing agreement, not traditional terms of use. The new proposed terms of use represent a step forward and a more comprehensive view of the Wikimedia projects. Among other things, they provide for:
More detailed reasons why we are proposing updated terms of use are set out here. Suffice it to say, we are consistent with other like-minded organizations, which have incorporated similar agreements, including Internet Archives, Creative Commons, Mozilla Firefox, Open Source Initiative,Project Gutenberg, Linux Foundation, Stack Exchange, WikiSpaces, and Word Press.com. Specifically, in its more than 320 printed pages of discussions, the community raised, discussed, and resolved more than 120 issues. There were many substantive and editorial changes that greatly improved the document. Much language was deleted or tightened at community request. As part of this process, the community addressed a number of interesting topics, such as:
Needless to say, this project would have been impossible without the hard work and expertise of our community. Through their tireless effort, the community mentored important and deep discussions on critical subjects for Wikimedia. The process forced us to think about issues that we had never addressed directly. In short, the value of collaboration quickly became obvious. Its magic created a document many times better than the original. Many thanks to Philippe, Maggie, Steven, Michelle, Kelly, Matt, and others at WMF for their hard work on this project. Proposed Resolution As General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, I hereby propose the following resolution for approval by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation: Resolved, that, upon recommendation of the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation and upon review and consideration of the extensive community discussions on the subject, the Board of Trustees hereby approves to substitute the current terms of use, which is presently found here, with the proposed terms of use, which is presently found here. If the Board would find it useful, I will be happy to discuss the proposed terms of use in detail during its February meetings. I do request approval of the new proposed terms of use at those meetings if the schedule of the Board so allows. Regards, Geoff Geoffrey Brigham |
- Preserved from automated archival. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)