Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2014

< Talk:Terms of use | Archives
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Verdy p in topic Terms of use

Reasons for the 2011 Terms of Use

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In 2011, the Foundation adopted a new Terms of Use. The Foundation's General Counsel gave two explanations of why we did this, which are included in this section.

Discussion of the 2014 disclosure amendment to the Terms of Use is below this section. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A copy of the 2011 email by the WMF General Counsel announcing the Terms of Use collaboration process.
expand

Hi,

In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas.

As I see it, right now our present terms of use is not much more than a licensing agreement. It does not address a number of other subjects that are normally found in terms of use of other community-driven websites and that are often relevant for both legal and community reasons. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft.

Our plan is to review the comments and feedback, make appropriate changes and edits, return with a revised version, and, if appropriate, propose that draft to the Board of Trustees for adoption and translation.

Generally, we sought to craft a document that is more even-handed, shorter, and easier-to-read than most user agreements. Although we encourage you to read the entire draft, here are some key provisions to give you some flavor:

  • Security: The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions - like malware - that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising.
  • Roles and responsibilities: We feel we need to be honest with the community on a number of issues, including user liability. We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance on this topic. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble.
  • Community feedback: With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved … obviously. So the proposed agreement gives users a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes.
  • Free Licensing: We felt our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors.
  • Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
  • Other Legal Provisions: We do have other legal provisions...we are lawyers after all. Most notably, the proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as disclaimers and limitations on liability.

Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Your input will be invaluable.

Geoff

Talk page comment from the WMF General Counsel, further elaborating on the email above.
expand

Some folks have asked me to explain in more detail, beyond my email, why we need a user agreement, which, of course, I’m happy to do. To start, I want to underscore a couple of points. First, a user agreement should serve as a guide to new editors and readers (as well as the rest of the Community). It should help newbies understand the basic rules of the game and their responsibilities. It is only fair notice, and it reflects our commitment to transparency. When people understand the rules, when they understand their responsibilities, the experience is likely to be a better one for the reader and user as well as the Community. To be sure, not everyone reads the user agreement, but many do. And, when there are questions, it is always there as a reference to guide and advise.

Second, a lot of this falls into the category of “an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.” There is a reason that every other website of our size has a (much more extensive and shockingly one-sided) terms of use: a little bit of legal language can go a long way in keeping an organization out of court. Indeed, we see more extensive terms of use than our present one on websites that share values of openness and community. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

These terms of use are useful in preventing the frivolous lawsuits that could otherwise hit hard an organization’s budget; an issue that is especially relevant for a non-profit. Just because a lawsuit lacks basis doesn’t mean we don’t still have to hire a lawyer to go to court to defend us, and, if there’s one thing lawyers are known for, it’s that their costs add up fast.

Wikipedia and our other sites are really big now. This is something to rejoice and be proud of – you, as well as everyone who has contributed over the years, have done a great job building this amazing site while promoting an incredible mission! But being large means you have to protect yourself, your infrastructure, and your Community.

That said, let me take a stab at explaining some of the more specific reasons for the proposed terms of use:

  1. A good description of our services (Sec. 1) reinforces to third parties, potential litigants, and courts what is a known and important fact about our operation: Wikimedia is a hosting site, entitled to legal immunity under U.S. and some foreign law. We constantly receive threats of lawsuits, but, after we explain our hosting site immunity, most of those threats go away. If we do go to litigation, and we sometimes do, courts are receptive to our hosting status position. The proposed language in the user agreement is not essential, but it can help persuade a foreign court that we are hosting content where the local law is unclear. In short, it reduces costs: We operate on a small budget, and every time we can persuade a lawyer not to sue us or a court to support us, that means more money to support the Community mission.
  2. The user agreement helps new users see comprehensively the most important policies governing our site, like the Privacy Policy (Sec. 2), Board resolutions (Sec. 11), and Community policies (Sec. 11). It becomes more difficult for a user to claim ignorance about these essential guidelines when they are referenced in a user agreement.
  3. A user agreement provides helpful notice to new users on issues that govern their very first edit. For example, a new user should know upfront that he or she is responsible for his or her edits (Sec. 1b). That is only fair. A new user should understand what basic behavior is not acceptable on the site (something that we are working to define right now through this discussion process)(Sec. 4). That helps both the user and the Community.
  4. The prohibitions also are intended to assist the Community when it enforces its rules against unacceptable conduct (Sec. 4, 10). Indeed, for some of these prohibitions, such as long term abuse, senior members of the Community requested that we address this behavior as aggressively as possible; this user agreement is in partial response to that. Unacceptable conduct that is expressly called out in the user agreement provides backup for all the projects to enforce against violating users. And, if we were challenged in court, clearer rules in the user agreement would render these community actions even easier to defend.
  5. The user agreement seeks to put in one place the essential parts of other legal or important documents on our site, many of which would be particularly hard to locate for newer or less familiar editors and readers. For example, the user agreement addresses potentially offensive material (Sec. 3a), non-professional advice (Sec. 3b), use of our trademarks (Sec. 6), and third party websites and resources (Sec. 9). See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking ; http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy .
  6. With respect to technical situations like malware attacks on the site, we need to be ready to litigate if necessary. We facilitate that legal option by underscoring our boundaries in the user agreement for purposes of common law trespass and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Sec. 4). We want to be in the best position to protect our infrastructure and pursue all legal avenues, and the user agreement advances those goals.
  7. A user agreement should provide helpful information to ensure the experience is a positive one. We do that in the new proposed agreement. See Sec. 5 (telling users to keep their password secure); Sec. 8 (providing advice on how to handle DMCA takedown notices).
  8. Like the present user agreement, we need to provide clear guidance on the licensing requirements (Sec. 7). With a new reiteration, we hope we employ even easier-to-understand language (though we could probably do better, and as with everything else, welcome your suggestions to improve it).
  9. A user agreement allows us to gather in one place required legal notices and processes which help limit our legal liability, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)(Sec. 8).
  10. The crown jewels for the Community and the Foundation are the Wikimedia trademarks. We need to be vigilant in this area, and the agreement puts all users on further notice that the trademarks may be used for only limited purposes that advance our mission (Sec. 6). Part of our ongoing legal responsibility as an organization is to safeguard our marks, and it is surprisingly easy for these trademarks to be lost due to obscure legal pitfalls. Our trademarks are there to protect users, the community, and the general populace by providing a clear method of identifying our services and goods so people are not misled by fraudulent impostors. The proposed user agreement furthers that aim.
  11. There are good reasons to limit WMF liability in other ways (Sec. 13-16). WMF works off a limited budget consisting of valued donor money. $30 million sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for a website our size. As noted above, any wording that can persuade a lawyer not to file a lawsuit, saves donors' money - money that can be reinvested to assist the Community in forwarding the Wikimedia movement. I don't want to waste it on outside lawyers.

The above is only a partial list on the reasons for the proposed terms of use, but I hope you find it useful. As I have said below, in the end, this is intended to be a Community document, reflecting its values while reasonably protecting the Foundation. I encourage your feedback and suggestions and thank everyone who has participated so far.

Geoffbrigham 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Preserved from automated archival. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

Paid, non-CoI edits

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

My reading of the new terms is that if I run a training session for, say, librarians, or university lecturers, who are attending in work time, then they must disclose that they have been paid, even if their edits are to a sandbox, or make simple changes such as fixing punctuation or adding references, or adding content unrelated to their employer, as:

any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation

The FAQ reinforces this:

you are ... required to comply with the disclosure provision when you are compensated by your employer or by a client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project

This is likely, in my view, to have a chilling effect on such training.


If I am paid to deliver that training, and make edits during it, such as posting welcome templates, or fixing formatting errors in trainees' edits to articles, I now have to declare that I've been employed to do so. I even have to declare if I'm simply provided with lunch ("an exchange of money, goods, or services"; no exceptions are listed.) Ditto an editathon participant who is given a copy of the GLAM's guidebook, or a free pass to an attraction for which there is usually a charge.


I further note that the FAQ (which appears to be informational, and not part of the terms of use) covers two GLAM/ University scenarios:

  • someone "encouraged" by their employer "to contribute generally without more specific instruction"
  • someone "specifically compensated to edit the article about" the place at which they are employed

It does not consider someone "specifically compensated" to edit an article where there is no CoI (such as, for example, a cancer charity employee paid to improve the article on radiotherapy). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy's comments. The letter from the Board states "The amendment is not intended to impact participants in GLAM projects, or professors, when they are writing about topics of general interest on their own, rather than writing about their own institutions while being compensated directly quid pro quo, for example." This seems to preclude the possibility of GLAM professionals writing about topics of general interest while being compensated (not "on their own"), and perpetuating the insinuation that all paid editing is for advocacy. There is now a presumption that experts who edit Wikipedia to increase knowledge about a subject area as part of their work are introducing bias and must be regulated. We already struggle with the perception that academics and cultural professionals are not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all due to conflict of interest; this certainly will reinforce that idea. Dominic (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Commons is already opting out. For those operating on English projects, I think the solution is to propose an opt out on those with a swifter decision making process (like Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikibooks) and then conduct trainings preferably on the sister projects. --Nemo 20:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, User:Pigsonthewing and User:Dominic. I appreciate the engagement. Let me try to answer by taking a step back and looking at the big picture.
The focus of this change is, as the language says, about clarifying and strengthening the existing rules about deceptive editing. Or, as the FAQ puts it, about edits where there is a relationship between the payments and the content. If someone pays you in a training to show them how to fix typos or use Wikitext, that is different from making positive content edits about their company or organization during a training (“let me show you how to edit by deleting this fact you don’t like”). If you are employed as an expert, and your employer encourages you to make edits on your general area of expertise, that is different from being paid to make edits about your employer. In the first case, you are not required to disclose your employer (even though you may be "on the clock" while editing); in the second case, you should disclose.
With regards to specific questions about detailed line-drawing: the purpose of the terms is not to catch users who make occasional good-faith mistakes; we think most users, most of the time, will do the right thing. At the same time, since this is a general terms of use, we can’t lay out every potential case ahead of time. Given this, it may be useful, when trying to figure out your own actions, to ask yourself the question: am I being transparent about my affiliations and motivations? Is there a reason for me not to be transparent? If for some reason you’re particularly strongly concerned that you should not provide information, consider discussing it on the relevant talk page before making the edit. That's probably more useful as background than any specific hypotheticals about whether sandwiches are payments or not. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I am a little confused where the nuance you are expressing here is coming from. I've read the actual amendment, which states simply "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation". It does not say, as you are suggesting, that if you are being paid to edit on your area of expertise that this requirement does not apply you. Just to be clear, do you realize that it is possible for an academic or cultural professional to make edits on Wikipedia, as part of their job (i.e., directed by their employer, not "encouraged" or "on their own") that are not about their institution or self-promotional, but about their are of expertise? This is the specific, non-hypothetical situation for which I'm expressing concern. Dominic (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm rather concerned by your apparent - and hopefully unintentional - insinuation that I wasn't "looking at the big picture". I second Dominic's responses to you. Furthermore, the change does not "strengthen" existing rules, it changes them; not least in the manner I describe. And I dispute that the difference you describe does exist in the new terms of use. You appear to be describing an intent, which is not what is written. And the new terms as written will be applied by admins and arbcom members who - potentially - may be looking for a stick to wield. Your first paragraph ignores the "third case" which I described. In your second, you dismissively refer to "hypothetical sandwiches"; However, I refer to real cases, such as the three-course cooked meals with wine, as kindly served to volunteers by the European Parliament earlier this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I apologize that my point about expertise was stated unclearly. The point is not that experts don’t have to disclose; what matters is why the expert is editing - are they doing it because they are being paid to edit or not? If they are directed to edit by their institution as part of their job, they must disclose. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; that's one of the points Dominic and I were making. We then raised some problems that that is likely (certain, I'd say) to cause. The new requirement is under the umbrella of preventing "deceptive activities" - so much for "assume good faith". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:, "So much for AGF" was the original title for my blog post on this amendment. I do think the opt-out mechanism does go a fair way toward addressing my secondary concern (about how this impacts non-enwp projects), but it doesn't change the fact that this amendment singles out specific kinds of (potentially) COI edits and identifies them as TOU violations. It will produce both false-positives and false-negatives, because at its core, it attempts to take a complex issue, and address it with a simple, broad-brush approach. -Pete F (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I meant to spell that out:
  • By "false positives" I mean the ones you and Dominic are discussing above: subject matter experts working innocuously in their field of expertise, who should not have to worry about jumping through specific hoops (though I think we all agree it's an important and good practice to disclose anyway);
  • By "false negatives" I mean actual, agenda-pushing paid advocates, who gain confidence through their compliance with this amendment, incorrectly concluding that the extremely low level of disclosure now required is somehow sufficient for ethical engagement. -Pete F (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I see we also have problems with religious orders even on en.wiki. Was the Vatican informed of the new Terms of use? (FYI it.wiki has some very active editors who are priests.) --Nemo 11:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this. I disclose. And all the articles I have written since 2009 are put up for deletion by some hateful witch hunter, perhaps still in high school?--216.77.71.138 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But that can happen to anyone any time. The articles would not be deleted if they meet the policies, this would be a wider community discussion. By the way, being in high school is not a bad thing, neither is having a doctorate. I really enjoyed your edit comment here: "Furthermore, I have a Ph.D. and know more about research than most contributors"; very amusing. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Heavy-handed edit summaries aside (hopefully it wasn't meant that way; in fairness, a PhD is about having personally done top-level research),
I do tend to agree that trolls are prime beneficiaries of this policy change. Wikipedia (in particular amongst the sisters) is already suffering from the accumulated effects of years of troll-friendly social infrastructure, and this looks like more fuel on the fire. --Pi zero (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Global user pages

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

For compliance with the new terms of use, I currently feel compelled to add my disclaimer to about 281 more wikis. It's ugly enough to make my user pages so cluttered when I managed to keep them clean for almost ten years now, but it will be a pain to update hundreds of wikis following the opt outs from the new restriction etc.
In other words, I assume the WMF will now work on global user pages to make the terms of use actionable? Alternatively, I'd also be ok with the new requirement being restricted to en.wiki, as I already made my edit there. :) --Nemo 20:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As a volunteer photographer (albeit sometimes compensated by chapters, with hotel room, travel costs and a stipend for food) and as a paid Wikipedian in Residence, I've edited Wikipedias in languages which I cannot speak (some using alphabets which I cannot read), to add my own images, and high-resolution scans of artworks donated by GLAMS. I am incapable of making the newly-required declaration on such Wikipedias, in their local languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The amendment does not require that you write the disclosure in the language of the project you are editing. It probably should, but that is a separate problem to your problem. Lucky for you, your native language is the worlds most understood language. You already use the English language in your edit summaries on projects you dont understand, and there are less than 10 non-English projects which you have more than 10 edits other than your userpage.
While I agree with Nemo bis's point about practicality, there is a bot that automatically syncronises user pages - it was operated by user:Pathoschild, and this perhaps should be mentioned in the FAQ to assist people who need to roll out a COI notice to hundreds of user pages where they frequently edit and using edit summaries every edit are not practical. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
While I occasionally use English on such Wikipedias (usually to apologise for not speaking the local language, and/ or to request translation), I would not rely on it to prevent me (nor anyone else) from getting blocked over an issue such as that discussed here; any more then I would expect a Japanese-language disclosure (for example) to be accepted on the English Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Compensation

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I put a question regarding the definition of compensation at Wikimedia Forum#Definition: Compensated Editing?. Is someone around, who dares answering it? I acknowledge the good intentions of all parties involved, but the result of this TOU-amendmend is a mess, and you will have to clean it up. --h-stt !? 10:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello h-stt, thanks for your questions. I will take a look, and we will get back to you shortly. Thanks! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
ping! Is 48 hours too short for such a question? --h-stt !? 13:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for your patience -- I posted in the other thread. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are non-administrators able to edit the Terms of use page that this talk page is associated with? I feel someone should should protect it as soon as possible.

Thanks.

DLindsley (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

These pages are monitored, spammers or posters of junks are very rapidely reverted. And anyway the original approved is archived on the WMF wiki. People may still edit typos or could still propose minor changes when they are discussed here.
Some minor changed are sometimes needed to fix translation problems in other pages (e.g. missing stable anchors)
Finally n ote that the English source is also monitored by translation admins! the changes in the original has no effect on translations before they are marked for being changed as well in translations. The translations themselves are also monitored
Meta-Wiki contains a reworkable version of these pages nad discussions are never ended. There are enough protections in my opinion and enough backups so it is easy to revert malicious changes (just like I just did in the French version with someone posting random junk). verdy_p (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2014&oldid=18768249"
Return to "Terms of use/Archives/2014" page.