Felhasználási feltételek/Fizetett hozzájárulások kiegészítése
Felhasználási Feltételek kiegészítése: Fizetett hozzájárulások közzététele
Ahogy az a Felhasználási Feltételek 16. pontjában szerepel, 30 napig fogadunk el közösségi hozzászólásokat az indítványozott módosítással kapcsolatban, mielőtt benyújtásra kerül a kuratórium felé felülvizsgálatra. Fordítás német, indonéz, francia, spanyol, olasz, japán és még néhány nyelven érhető el. A közösséget arra ösztönözzük, hogy fordítsák le és egyéb nyelveken is vitassák meg az indítványt.
Alpont került hozzáadásra a Felhasználási Feltételek 4. pontjának, „Tartózkodás bizonyos tevékenységektől” végéhez.
- Nyilvánosságra nem hozott fizetett hozzájárulások
- a statement on your user page,
- a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
- a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our background note on disclosure of paid contributions.
In response to community comment in the ongoing consultation, the WMF’s LCA team suggests three potential changes to the proposal. These changes would modify the second sentence of the first paragraph of the amendment, as described below. These options are not mutually exclusive – both of them, either, or neither could be adopted by the Board, depending on your input (and depending on whether they adopt the amendment as a whole).
These potential changes aim to address concerns that have been raised regarding reaction against editors who are allegedly in violation of these requirements, and concern about protecting good-faith contributors (e.g., professors, students, or Wikipedians in Residence) from unintentionally violating the disclosure requirement. We think that either or both of the three options could better focus the amendment on paid advocacy editing, which is a chief concern. However, we also realize they could raise other considerations. Your feedback on these options will help the Board as it considers what language to adopt.
This consultation has been informative, positive, and constructive. We appreciate this, and look forward to your comments on these options.
A változások leírása
|Current sentence||Option 1||Option 2||Option 3|
|To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia projects for which you receive compensation.||As part of these obligations, if you receive financial compensation for any contribution about an organization, living person, or commercial product, you must disclose the employer and client who compensated you.||As part of these obligations, if you receive financial compensation for any contribution, you must disclose that you were compensated.|
[Add the following paragraph]
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page [index to be created]
Option No. 1: Adds “about an organization, living person, or commercial product” to describe the contributions.
This option narrows what kinds of contributions these requirements would apply to. This focuses on topics that are potential subjects of advertisement and promotion, and excludes other topics of general interest. The intent is to try to exclude potential application to professors, teachers, and Wikipedians in Residence, and other individuals editing on topics of less commercial interest.
Option No. 2: Narrows down the extent of the disclosure, changing it from “your employer, client, and affiliation” to just “that you were compensated.”
This option focuses on simply the fact that compensation was involved, rather than specific information about the editor’s identity. The intent is to allow editors to identify and review paid edits without requiring editors to disclose specific information about their identity. Individual projects may supplement this rule, and create guidelines for additional disclosures, depending on the circumstances.
Option No. 3: Allowing projects to write an alternative disclosure policy
Common changes in both options
In addition to the options above, we plan to make three other small changes:
- Change the words “To ensure compliance with” to “As part of these”, and reorder the sentence.
- Remove the words “to any Wikimedia projects”
- Add the word “financial” to describe compensation.
The first two changes aim to improve clarity. The last change (the addition of the word “financial” to describe compensation) narrows what this would apply to, which we think will reduce confusion about the definition of compensation. (People had asked, for example, if this applied to things like students receiving a grade in class, or first-time editors receiving a free lunch during an editathon, neither of which we originally intended to be included.)
GYIK az anyagi hozzájárulások nyilvánosságra hozatalával kapcsolatban
Miért szükséges ez a nyilvánosságra hozási kikötés?
What is the “applicable law” for paid contributions on Wikipedia? Are undisclosed paid contributions potentially illegal?
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, including concealment of a professional affiliation in specific cases, are prohibited in multiple jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the nationwide authority to regulate unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. As the FTC illustrated in the below example, those failing to disclose a regulated company’s affiliation online may be subject to 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.
The FTC’s guide Dot Com Disclosures specifies that “disclosures must be communicated effectively so that consumers are likely to notice and understand them in connection with the representations that the disclosures modify.” For state law implications, see, e.g., N.Y. Attorney General’s 2013 investigation regarding companies engaging in astroturfing.
Laws applicable outside the US may also prohibit non-disclosure of paid contributions. The EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (and the corresponding national versions) ban the practice of “[u]sing editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer” and “[f]alsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.” National legislation of EU member states may further restrict undisclosed paid contributions, such as through local competition laws, and, for similar reasons, local national courts may find violations in failing to disclose one’s affiliation on Wikipedia in the proper way. Indeed, government authorities may require disclosures of paid editing that are impossible to execute on Wikipedia — such as disclosures by businesses in the article itself to ensure notice to the reader; in such cases, paid editing is not allowed on the Wikimedia sites.
Are there other possible negative effects of paid contributions?
There is an extreme likelihood that contributions which are paid for, but intentionally not disclosed as such, do not serve the public interest in a fair and beneficial manner. When considering the value of the contribution of content to the public on balance with the value of dissemination of the content, there is at least an implied conflict of interest that the balance will tend to serve the more private interests of the paid contributor. If it is accepted that this is the case more often than not, it is hard to imagine the expected outcome as a net positive for Wikipedia.
As repeated real life examples illustrate, undisclosed paid editing can have the unintended effect of causing negative public relations issues for companies, clients, and individuals. 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 as well as 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, be sure to follow local policies regarding paid contributions, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the English Wikipedia.
How will community enforcement of these obligations work with existing rules about privacy and behavior?
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.
If an editor wishes to avoid the disclosure requirement of this amendment, they should abstain from receiving compensation for their edits.
How will this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”)?
The intent of these requirements is not to discourage teachers, professors, or those working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”) institutions from making contributions in good faith. Disclosure is only required when contributors are compensated by their employer or client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project. For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. If that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by her university to contribute to projects about topics of general interest without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose her affiliation with the university.
The same is true with GLAM employees. Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution. A museum employee who is contributing to projects about topics of his general interest without more specific instruction from the museum need not disclose his affiliation with the museum. At the same time, when required, a simple disclosure that one is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with a particular museum, for example, would be sufficient disclosure for purposes of the proposed amendment.
What do you mean by “compensation”?
As used in this provision, “compensation” means an exchange of money, goods, or services.
What does the phrase “employer, client, and affiliation” mean?
This means the person or organization that is paying you compensation — money, goods, or services — with respect to any contribution to a Wikimedia project. This could be a business, a charity, an educational institution, a government department or another individual, for example. The disclosure requirement is simple, and requires you to provide this information in one of the three ways described above. If you are editing an article on Wikipedia on behalf of your employer, for example, you must disclose your employer’s details. If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm’s client. If you are a compensated Wikimedian in residence, for example, you must note the details of the GLAM organisation that is paying you.
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. That said, a simple disclosure on your user page satisfies this minimum requirement.
Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as I make the disclosure?
Does this mean that Wikimedia projects must change their policies?
No, unless their policies are inconsistent with these minimum requirements. Wikimedia projects are free to change their policies to reference this requirement or require stricter requirements for paid contributions. We encourage users to be respectful of user privacy and not harass others, even in cases of suspected paid contributions. For example, under the English Wikipedia policy on harassment, users must not publicly share personal information about other users.
How should I disclose paid contributions in my user page?
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, Jordan Smith, you may write this note in the edit summary box: “Jordan Smith has hired me to update their Wikipedia article” or “I work for Jordan Smith.”
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.
Does the Wikimedia Foundation encourage or accept paid advocacy editing?
WMF feels that paid advocacy editing is a significant problem that threatens the trust of Wikimedia’s readers, as our Executive Director said in her statement on paid advocacy editing. This proposal does not change that position.
However, it is hard to solve the problem of paid advocacy editing without accidentally discouraging good-faith editors, like the various GLAM (gallery, library, archive, and museum) projects. Because of this difficulty, this amendment takes a simple approach: requiring straightforward disclosure of information. This does not mean that paid-advocacy editing is acceptable! Instead, we think that the best way to attack the complex problem while still encouraging new good faith contributions is to combine this pro-transparency requirement with per-project policies that use this new information to make nuanced, difficult case-by-case judgments. We hope that this will lead to the best outcome by combining each Wikimedian’s ability to handle nuance and complexity with the resources of the Foundation (when that is absolutely necessary).
Also the proposed amendment makes clear that “community and Foundation policies, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.” This provision gives the community discretion to further limit paid editing, including paid advocacy editing, according to the needs of the specific project. That is, the proposed amendment is a minimal requirement, but the community may impose greater restrictions or bans.
- ↑ Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2) (2006).
- ↑ Federal Trade Commission Act; 16 C.F.R. § 255.5, example 8, p.12.
- ↑ 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)
- ↑ Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament (Annex I, points 11 and 22).