이용약관/유급 편집 공표에 대한 질문과 답변

This page is a translated version of the page Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure and the translation is 30% complete.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Türkçe • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎euskara • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português do Brasil • ‎română • ‎suomi • ‎Ελληνικά • ‎български • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎हिन्दी • ‎中文 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어

유급 편집 공표에 대한 질문과 답변

무료 자원 봉사자로서 단순히 편집하거나 업로드하는 경우 이 조항이 적용됩니까?

절대 아닙니다! 위키미디어 프로젝트는 수만 명의 무급 자원 봉사자들이 편집하고 지원합니다. 위키백과와 기타 위키미디어 프로젝트는 세계 최고의 웹 사이트 중 유일한 비영리 웹 사이트 인 비영리 단체에서 운영합니다. 이 자원 봉사는 우리 프로젝트를 특별하고 널리 사용하게 만드는 것입니다. 무료 자원 봉사자로서 이 이용 약관 조항에 따라 공개 할 필요없이 콘텐츠를 편집하고 업로드하는 것이 좋습니다.

그러나 일부 기여자는 편집에 대한 대가를 받습니다. 이러한 기여자는 중립적인 관점에서 편집 할 때 프로젝트의 전반적인 품질을 향상시킵니다. 여기에는 대학과 갤러리, 도서관, 아카이브 및 박물관과 같은 기관과 관련된 많은 기여자가 포함됩니다. 반면에 유료 옹호 편집(즉, 회사와 제품 및 서비스를 홍보하기위한 문서의 유료 편집)은 대부분의 프로젝트에서 강력히 권장되지 않거나 금지됩니다.

편집 비용을 지불하지 않아도 이 조항에 따른 공개에 대해 걱정할 필요가 없습니다. 절대 괜찮습니다. 여러분은 전 세계에서 사용할 수 있는 전례없는 무료 정보 자원에 기여하는 놀라운 자원 봉사자 공동체의 일원입니다.

급여를 받고 있는 경우 이를 공개해야합니다. 여러분 관점을 공정하게 공개하기 위해 편집 요약과 사용자 페이지 또는 토론 페이지에 해당 컨텍스트를 추가하여 공동체에 알리세요. 그러나 규칙을 반드시 숙지해야합니다. 아래에서 자세히 설명하는 것처럼, 유료 제휴를 숨기면서 유료 고객의 이익을 위해 위키미디어 프로젝트에 기여하는 것은 문제가 될 수 있습니다.

한 가지 작은 주의 사항: 일부 프로젝트에는 이용 약관에서 이 조항과 다르고 더 강력한 이해 상충 정책이 있습니다. 이러한 정책은 특정 형태의 자원 편집(예를 들어, 자신에 대한 문서에 기여)을 금지 할 수 있습니다. 시작하기 전에 해당 공동체 정책을 확인하세요! 질문이 있으시면 지역 프로젝트 공동체에 언제든지 문의하세요. 각 프로젝트는 연락처 정보(일반적으로 페이지 하단)를 제공하며 일반적으로 질문과 공지를 위한 다른 장소를 가지고 있습니다.

이 조항은 갤러리과 도서관, 기록 보관소 및 박물관("GLAM")의 교사와 교수 및 직원에게 어떤 영향을 줍니까?

이러한 요구 사항이 갤러리와 도서관, 기록 보관소 및 박물관("GLAM") 기관에서 일하는 교사와 교수 또는 사람들이 선의로 기부하는 것을 막아서는 안됩니다! 이러한 범주 중 하나에 해당하는 경우, 고용주 또는 클라이언트로부터 특별히 위키미디어 프로젝트에 대한 편집 및 업로드에 대해 보상을 받을 때만 공개 조항을 준수해야합니다.

예를 들어, X 대학교의 교수가 X 대학교에서 위키백과에 해당 대학에 대해 글을 쓰기 위해 직접 돈을 지불하는 경우 교수는 기여금이 보상된다는 사실을 공개해야합니다. "직접 대가성(quid pro quo) 교환: 편집을 위한 돈"이 있습니다. 그러나 교수가 교수와 연구 수행에 대한 급여를 단순히 받고 대학에서 더 구체적인 지도없이 일반적으로 기여하도록 권장하는 경우 해당 교수는 대학과의 관계를 공개 할 필요가 없습니다.

GLAM 직원도 마찬가지입니다. 공개는 특정 기부에 대한 대가로 보상을 약속했거나 받은 경우에만 필요합니다. 박물관의 특별한 지시없이 일반적으로 프로젝트에 기여하는 박물관 직원은 박물관과의 관계를 공개 할 필요가 없습니다. 반면에, 그들이 고용 된 아카이브에 대한 문서를 편집하도록 특별히 보상을 받은 거주지의 위키미디어 편집자는 그가 아카이브와 함께 거주지의 유료 위키미디어 편집자라는 간단한 공개를 해야합니다. 이것은 요구 사항의 목적을 위한 충분한 공개입니다.

How does community enforcement of this provision work with existing rules about privacy and behavior?

It’s important to protect good-faith editors. Like the rules around sockpuppeting and sockpuppet investigations, the disclosure provision in the Terms of Use is intended to work with existing policies and practices, so that there is a fair balance between identifying paid contributions and protecting those who are helping advance Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.

These policies include the cross-project value of civility, which is a pillar of Wikipedia; relevant project policies, like ENWP:OUTING; and the Terms of Use, which prohibit stalking and abuse. (In cases of more extreme behaviors, local law may also apply.)

This requirement, like others, should be applied constructively to enable collaboration and improve our projects. Users who violate them should first be warned and informed about these rules, and then only blocked if necessary. In other words: assume good faith and don’t bite the newcomers. Harassment should also be avoided. For example, under the English Wikipedia policy on harassment, users must not publicly share personal information about other users.

How can I avoid disclosure under this provision of the Terms of Use?

If you wish to avoid the disclosure requirement of this provision, you should abstain from receiving compensation for your edits.

What is the "applicable law" for paid contributions on Wikipedia and its sister sites? Are undisclosed paid contributions potentially illegal?

Depending on where you operate, a variety of laws could apply to you, your business, or your clients, such as unfair competition and simple fraud statutes. In addition to the requirements of the Terms of Use, you must comply with those laws in your disclosure and execution of paid contributions.

We cannot advise you about specific legal requirements, and you should employ your own lawyer if you have questions. That said, as general background, deceptive business practices, such as concealing a professional affiliation, are prohibited in many jurisdictions.

In the United States, for example, "Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful."[1] The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the nationwide authority to regulate this.[2] For instance, if you failed to disclose in a relevant online forum that you are affiliated with a company under the FTC’s regulation, FTC regulations warn of liability:

An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product. Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.[3]

The FTC's guide Dot Com Disclosures specifies that disclosures like this one "must be communicated effectively so that consumers are likely to notice and understand them". State law may also apply, as in the N.Y. Attorney General’s 2013 investigation regarding companies engaging in astroturfing.[4]

Outside the US, other laws may also require disclosure of paid contributions. The EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (and corresponding national versions) ban use of "editorial content ... to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear".[5] National legislation of EU member states may further restrict undisclosed paid contributions. For example, competition laws have been used by national courts in Germany to find violations when a contributor failed to properly disclose their affiliation.

Where legally-required disclosures cannot be made in a way that complies with community rules, the community rules take precedence. For example, if local laws require disclosure of sponsorship of an edit in the article text itself, and putting such a message in the article text violated community rules (as it likely does in most projects), then such edits would be prohibited.

What are the non-legal possible negative effects of paid contributions?

As repeated real life examples illustrate, paid editing without appropriate disclosure can result in negative publicity for companies, clients, and individuals. We've found that the press follows such stories closely. Failing to include a disclosure with a paid contribution may lead to a loss of trust with the broader public in addition to the Wikimedia community.

To maintain goodwill and to avoid misunderstandings, transparency and friendly cooperation is the best policy for those being compensated for Wikimedia contributions. To avoid embarrassment, you should disclose as required by the Terms of Use, as well as local policies regarding paid contributions, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (for the English Wikipedia).

"보상"의 의미가 뭐죠?

만약을 위한 대비로, "보상"의 의미는 돈, 물건, 서비스 등을 교환하는 것입니다.

“고용주, 고객, 소속” 은 무슨 뜻이죠?

기여자에게 위키미디어 프로젝트 기여에 대해 돈, 재화, 서비스와 같은 댓가를 지불하는 사람이나 기관을 말합니다. 예를 들면 사업체, 자선단체, 교육기관, 정부 부서, 또는 개인일 수도 있습니다. 의무 공표사항은 간단히 기여자가 위에 설명한 세 방법 중 하나로 이 정보를 공표하기만 하면 된다는 것입니다. 예를 들어, 고용자를 대변하는 입장에서 위키백과 문서를 고칠 때는, 그 고용주에 대한 사항들을 밝혀야 합니다. 만일 홍보업체에 고용된 사람이 위키백과를 편집할 때는 홍보업체와 계약업체를 모두 공표해야 합니다. 만일 보상 거주 위키미디어 편집자라면, 그 보수를 지급하는 갤러리·도서관·기록관리소·박물관 (GLAM) 기관을 명기해야 합니다.

Are paid editing disclosures required only when editing Wikipedia articles?

No, you must disclose your employment, client, and affiliation when making any type of paid contribution to any Wikimedia project. This includes edits on talk pages and edits on projects other than Wikipedia.

Note that some projects have adopted an alternative disclosure policy that may change the level of disclosure required.

Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?

No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits.

How should I disclose paid contributions in my user page?

You may explain that you work for a particular client or employer on your user page. If you work for company Acme, and, as part of your job responsibilities, you edit Wikipedia articles about company Acme, you satisfy the minimum requirement of the Terms of Use if you simply say that you edit on behalf of company Acme on your user page. You however need to follow community or Foundation policies, in addition to applicable law.

How should I disclose paid contributions in my edit summary?

You may represent your employer, affiliation, and client in the edit summary box before you "save" your edit or contribution. For example, before saving your edits to a Wikipedia article about your client, X, you may write this note in the edit summary box: "X has hired me to update their Wikipedia article" or "I work for X."

How should I disclose paid contributions on a talk page?

You may represent your employer, affiliation, and client in the relevant talk page either before, or immediately after, you "save" your edit or contribution.

Do I have to disclose the details of the compensation I am receiving?

You do not have to disclose the amount or type of compensation you are receiving for editing; the minimum required is that you disclose your employer, client, and affiliation.

Can a local project adopt an alternative disclosure policy for paid editing?

Disclosure of paid contributions to any of the Wikimedia projects is a requirement under the disclosure provision of the Terms of Use. Nonetheless, individual projects may create an alternative disclosure policy when their projects or communities have particular needs to either strengthen or reduce the requirements. The provision gives communities discretion to adjust the rules set out in the Terms of Use to their specific project after following the project's standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies. Adopting an alternative disclosure policy requires consensus, consistent with the project’s past practice and local understanding of what consensus is. To adopt a pre-existing policy as an alternative disclosure policy, a project community must gain consensus specifically to replace the paid editing disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use with the policy of the project. For an example of an alternative disclosure policy, see this proposal on MediaWiki.

After creating such a policy, projects must include their policy on the list of alternative disclosure policies. This list will help editors and sister projects to quickly discover what the local project policy for paid editing is, or if the default applies.

Does this provision mean that Wikimedia projects must change their policies?

Wikimedia projects may change their policies to reference this requirement, to require stricter requirements for paid contributions, or to provide alternative rules.

What projects have established alternative disclosure policies?

Projects that have alternative policies are listed here: list of alternative disclosure policies.

When did this clause go into effect?

The disclosure provision of the Terms of Use went into effect on June 16, 2014. The provision was the result of a discussion with the community, after an initial proposal to amend the Terms was made by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Legal and Community Advocacy Team. The discussion was closed on March 25, 2014, and the amendment was approved by the Board of Trustees on April 25, 2014.

각주

  1. Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)
  2. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2)
  3. 16 C.F.R. §255.5, Example 8, p.12.
  4. Parino v. Bidrack, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 900, 905 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (plaintiff's allegations, including defendant's creation and use of fake reviews on website, were sufficient to bring a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law)
  5. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament (Annex I, points 11 and 22).