Conditiones de uso/Emendamento sur contributiones pagate
Today we are officially closing this comment period under Section 16 of the Terms of Use. We want to thank you for investing your time and best efforts in participating. With over 6.3 million views of the proposal, and almost 5,000 edits in the discussion — with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages — this unprecedented exchange has shown how important the handling of paid contributions is to the community. It has also been useful in airing the various, often differing, points of view on this complex issue. We are convinced that the Board will appreciate this comprehensive review of the subject. Everyone knew that addressing paid contributions effectively would be a tough issue with legitimate competing considerations. There is a loudly voiced desire by many editors and readers for paid editing disclosures, aiming for transparent and unbiased contributions to Wikimedia projects. On the other hand, others are concerned about privacy, enforcement, harassment, evaluation of the “edit, not the editor,” among other things. For us, this consultation was an excellent exchange where we had the opportunity to learn more and understand better the various positions and their implications. As a next step, the Board will review the community comments. There has been a significant amount of discussion on this proposed amendment, so we expect that, with staff, the Board may take some time to review, discuss among themselves, and reach a decision on the next steps. The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic, but we have no doubt that the Board will also look at the strength of the arguments and competing considerations, as well as their own experiences, in evaluating how we handle the disclosure of paid editing. In deciding the best approach forward, we anticipate that the Board will examine the need for and language and implications of the original and alternative optional proposals as well as other community proposals. Thanks again for everyone’s detailed review and thoughtful insight in this discussion. We will keep you informed on the process and the Board’s deliberations. |
Emendamento al CdU: Divulgation de contributiones pagate
Introduction
Le Departimento Legal del Fundation Wikimedia se propone de demandar al Consilio de Administration del Fundation Wikimedia de considerar un proposition de emendamento a nostre Conditiones de Uso pro remediar le problema del modification pagate in secreto. Contribuer al projectos Wikimedia pro servir le interesses de un cliente pagante, obscurante le appertinentia pagate, ha jam resultate in situationes que le communitate considera como problematic. Multe personas crede que usatores con un potential conflicto de interesse deberea collaborar transparentemente e con divulgation honeste de contributiones pagate. In addition, facer contributiones al projectos Wikimedia sin divulgar pagamento o empleamento poterea resultar in complicationes juridic. Nostre Conditiones de Uso jam interdice le activitates deceptive, incluse le representation false de appertinentia, le usurpation de identitate e le fraude. Pro assecurar le conformitate con iste directivas, iste emendamento provide de certe requirimentos pro le minimo de divulgation necessari pro le contributiones pagate in le projectos Wikimedia.
Como requirite per le Section 16 del Conditiones de Uso, nos recipera le commentos del communitate durante 30 dies sur iste proposition de emendamento ante de inviar le version final al Consilio de Administration pro que illes lo revide. Traductiones es jam disponibile in germano, indonesiano, francese, espaniol, italiano, japonese e certe altere linguas. On incoragia le communitate a traducer le proposition de emendamento e a discuter lo in altere linguas tamben.
Proposition de emendamento
Un subsection addite al fin del Section 4 del Conditiones de Uso, a saper “Abstiner se de certe activitates”.
- Contributiones pagate sin divulgation
Iste Conditiones de Uso interdice le activitates deceptive, incluse le representation false de appertinentia, le usurpation de identitate e le fraude. Pro assecurar le conformitate con iste obligationes, vos debe divulgar vostre empleator, cliente e appertinentia concernente omne contribution a omne Projectos de Wikimedia pro le quales vos recipe, o previde de reciper, un recompensa. Vos debe divulgar isto in al minus un del sequente manieras:
- 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.
Le legislation applicabile, o le politicas e directivas communitari e del Fundation, per exemplo illos concernente le conflictos de interesse, pote limitar ancora plus le contributiones pagate o requirer un divulgation plus detaliate. Pro plus information, lege nostre annotation sur le divulgation de contributiones pagate.
Optional changes
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.
Description of the changes
| 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
This option focuses on providing local projects with an opportunity to create an alternative disclosure policy for paid contributions, to supersede the default disclosure policy provided in this section of the Terms of Use. The intent is to allow projects to prepare variations on how they expect disclosure, depending on the project and community’s needs, similar to how fair use is handled under the licensing policy. Projects may also supplement this rule and create guidelines for disclosure.
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.)
FAQ sur le divulgation de contributiones pagate
Proque iste clausula de divulgation es necessari?
Contribuer al projectos Wikimedia pro servir le interesses de un cliente pagante, obscurante le appertinentia pagate, ha jam resultate in situationes que le communitate considera como problematic. Multe personas crede que usatores con un potential conflicto de interesse deberea collaborar transparentemente e con divulgation honeste de contributiones pagate. In addition, facer contributiones al projectos Wikimedia sin divulgar pagamento o empleamento poterea resultar in complicationes juridic. Nostre Conditiones de Uso jam interdice le activitates deceptive, incluse le representation false de appertinentia, le usurpation de identitate e le fraude. Pro assecurar le conformitate con iste obligationes, iste clausula provide de certe requirimentos pro le minimo de divulgation necessari pro le contributiones pagate in le projectos Wikimedia.
Que es le "legislation applicabile" pro le contributiones pagate sur Wikipedia? Esque le contributiones pagate in secreto es potentialmente illegal?
Dependente del circumstantias personal, le modification pagate in secreto poterea exponer te, tu interprisa o tu clientes a un responsabilitate legal. Certe leges poterea applicar se a te, a tu interprisa o a tu clientes, p.ex. le leges sur le concurrentia disloyal o sur le fraude. In addition al requirimentos fixate in le Conditiones de Uso, tu debe conformar te a iste leges durante le divulgation e execution de tu contributiones pagate.
Il nos es impossibile avisar te concernente particular requirimentos juridic, e tu deberea recurrer a un advocato si tu ha questiones. Isto essente dicite, in general, le practica de negotios deceptive, incluse le obscuration de un appertinentia professional in certe casos, es prohibite in multe jurisdictiones. In le Statos Unite, per exemplo, le Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ha le autoritate national de regular le actos o practicas injuste o deceptive in le commercio.[1] Como illustrate per le FTC in le exemplo in basso, illes qui non divulga in linea un appertinentia a un compania regulate pote esser subjecte a responsabilitate legal:
- 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.[2]
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.[3]
Legislation applicabile extra le Statos Unite pote anque prohibir le non-divulgation de contributiones pagate. Le Directiva sur le Practicas Commercial Disloyal del UE (e le versiones national correspondente) interdice le practica de “usar contento editorial in le medios de communication pro promover un producto quando un negotiante ha pagate pro le promotion sin declarar isto in le contento o per imagines o sonos que le consumitor pote identificar clarmente” e “falsemente asserer o crear le impression que le negotiante non perseque objectivos associate a su negotios, commercio, mestiero o profession, o representar se falsemente qua consumitor.” [4] Le legislation national del statos membros del UE pote limitar ancora plus le contributiones pagate sin divulgation, p.ex. per legislation local protegente le concurrentia, e, similarmente, le cortes de justitia in paises individual pote judicar que on es in violation per non divulgar le proprie appertinentia in Wikipedia in le maniera appropriate.
Ha il altere possibile effectos negative de contributiones pagate?
Il es multo probabile que le contributiones que es pagate, ma intentionalmente pagate in secreto, non servi le interesse public in un maniera juste e benefic. Quando on pesa le valor del contribution de contento al publico in general contra le valor del dissemination de iste contento in particular, il ha un conflicto de interesse causante que le equilibrio servira plus tosto le interesses private del contributor pagante. Si on accepta isto como norma, il es difficile imaginar se un resultato positive pro Wikipedia.
Il ha jam occurrite multe vices in realitate que le modification pagate in secreto causa le effecto non intendite de publicitate negative pro companias, clientes e individuos. Le pressa seque intensivemente tal historias. Non includer un divulgation con un contribution pagate pote resultar in un perdita de confidentia al latere del publico in general e del communitate de Wikimedia in particular. Pro mantener le bon voluntate e pro evitar le miscomprensiones, le transparentia e le cooperation amical es le melior politica pro le personas qui recipe un recompensa pro lor contributiones a Wikimedia.
Pro evitar le embarasso, assecura te de sequer le directivas del sito particular concernente le contributiones pagate, per exemplo Conflict of interest pro le Wikipedia in anglese.
How will community enforcement of these obligations work with existing rules about privacy and behavior?
Like the rules around sockpuppeting and sockpuppet investigations, this disclosure requirement is intended to work with existing policies and practices, so that there is a fair balance between identifying paid contributions and protecting good-faith editors. These policies include the cross-project value of civility, which is a pillar of Wikipedia; relevant project policies, like ENWP:OUTING or ESWP:ACOSO; 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.
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.
Que vole dicer “recompensa”?
Como usate in iste clausula, “recompensa” vole dicer un excambio de moneta, benes o servicios.
Que vole dicer le phrase “empleator, cliente e appertinentia”?
Isto refere al persona o organisation que te paga un recompensa – in moneta, benes o servicios – concernente alcun contribution a un projecto Wikimedia. Isto poterea esser un interprisa, organisation caritative, instituto educative, departimento governamental o un altere individuo, per exemplo. Le requirimento de divulgation es simple, e necessita que tu forni iste information in un del tres manieras describite anteriormente. Si tu modifica un articulo in Wikipedia in nomine de tu empleator, per exemplo, tu debe divulgar le detalios de tu empleator. Si tu ha essite ingagiate per un firma de relationes public pro modificar Wikipedia, tu debe divulgar e le firma e le cliente del firma. Si tu es un “Wikimedian in residence” recipiente un recompensa, per exemplo, tu debe notar le detalios del organisation “GLAM” que te paga.
Esque le divulgation de contributiones pagate es necessari solmente quando io modifica articulos in Wikipedia?
No, tu debe divulgar tu empleo, cliente e appertinentia quando tu face non importa qual typo de contribution pagate a non importa qual projecto de Wikimedia. Isto include le modificationes in paginas de discussion e le modificationes in projectos altere que Wikipedia. Nonobstante, un simple divulgation in tu pagina de usator jam satisface iste requirimento minimal.
Esque isto significa que le contributiones pagate es sempre permittite a condition que io face le divulgation necessari?
No, le divulgationes obligate per le Conditiones de Uso reflecte le minimo requirite pro adjutar cata projecto Wikimedia a applicar su proprie politicas e directivas de forma appropriate. Le usatores debe anque debe conformar se a iste additional politicas e directivas, assi como omne leges applicabile. Per exemplo, le politica de Wikipedia in interlingua sur le puncto de vista neutral require que on debe scriber articulos “presentante clarmente e con referentias a fontes verificabile, cata un del punctos de vista notabile super un topico”, sin “prender parte” de alcun puncto de vista in particular. Iste requisitos debe esser sequite mesmo si le contributor divulga que ille face modificationes pagate.
Esque isto significa que le projectos Wikimedia debe cambiar lor politicas?
No, a minus que lor politicas es inconsistente con iste requirimentos minimal. Le projectos de Wikimedia es libere de cambiar lor politicas pro facer referentia a iste requirimento o de stipular regulas plus stricte pro le contributiones pagate. Nos incoragia le usatores a respectar le confidentialitate de altere usatores e non molestar alteres, non mesmo in caso que on suspecta contributiones pagate. Per exemplo, sub le politica del Wikipedia in anglese sur le molestia, le usatores non pote publicar information personal sur altere usatores.
Como divulgar contributiones pagate in mi pagina de usator?
Tu pote explicar in tu pagina de usator que tu travalia pro un particular cliente o empleator. Si tu travalia pro le compania Acme, e, como parte del responsabilitates de tu empleo, tu modifica le articulos de Wikipedia sur le compania Acme, tu jam satisface le minimo requirite per le Conditiones de Uso si tu dice simplemente in tu pagina de usator que tu modifica in nomine del compania Acme. Nonobstante, tu debe etiam sequer le politicas del communitate o del Fundation, assi como le lege applicabile.
Como divulgar contributiones pagate in mi summario de modification?
Tu pote divulgar tu empleator, appertinentia e cliente in le quadro pro summario de modification ante de “publicar” tu modification o contribution. Per exemplo, ante de publicar tu modificationes in un articulo de Wikipedia sur tu cliente, Mario Ferrero, tu pote scriber iste nota in le quadro de summario: “Mario Ferrero me ha ingagiate pro actualisar su articulo de Wikipedia” o “Io travalia pro Mario Ferrero”.
Como divulgar contributiones pagate in un pagina de discussion?
Tu pote divulgar tu empleator, appertinentia e cliente in le pagina de discussion pertinente o ante, o immediatemente post que tu “publica” tu modification o contribution.
Esque io debe divulgar le detalios del recompensa que io recipe?
Tu non es obligate a divulgar le quantitate o typo de recompensa que tu recipe pro modificar; le minimo requirite es que tu divulga tu empleator, cliente e appertinentia.
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.
Referentias
- ↑ 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, punctos 11 e 22).