This page is a translated version of the page Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment and the translation is 56% complete.
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Frysk • ‎Lëtzebuergesch • ‎Malagasy • ‎Nederlands • ‎Tagalog • ‎Tiếng Việt • ‎Türkçe • ‎Zazaki • ‎azərbaycanca • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎interlingua • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎norsk bokmål • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎română • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎ślůnski • ‎Ελληνικά • ‎беларуская • ‎български • ‎русский • ‎татарча/tatarça • ‎українська • ‎עברית • ‎ئۇيغۇرچە • ‎ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche • ‎العربية • ‎فارسی • ‎नेपाली • ‎हिन्दी • ‎বাংলা • ‎ਪੰਜਾਬੀ • ‎தமிழ் • ‎తెలుగు • ‎සිංහල • ‎中文 • ‎中文(台灣)‎ • ‎客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî • ‎文言 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어

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.

Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)










  • あなたの利用者ページでの公開
  • 投稿した記事に付随するノートページでの公開、もしくは
  • 投稿の際の要約欄での公開


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 案 1 案 2 案 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]


ウィキメディア・プロジェクトの共同体では、新しい有料寄稿開示規則を採用することができます。 新しい開示規則を採用しているウィキメディア・プロジェクトに寄稿する場合は、このセクションでの要求事項の代わりに新しい開示規則に従うものとします。 新しい開示規則は、関連するプロジェクトの共同体がそれに賛同し、新しい開示規則のページに掲載されている場合にのみ、これらの要求事項にとって代わるものとします。

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.

Please discuss this option on the talk page.

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.

Please discuss this option on the talk page.

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.

Please discuss this option on the talk page.

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.)






当財団は特定の法的要件を勧告することができませんので、疑問点がございましたらご自身で弁護士をお雇いください。その上で、一般的背景として、特定の事例での所属の隠匿など不正なビジネス慣行は、多数の法域で禁止されています。例えば米国では、連邦取引委員会(Federal Trade Commission、FTC)が商業目的の不正または欺瞞の行為または慣行を規制する全国的な権限を持っています。[1]、15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2) (2006年)]。以下の例でFTCが示しているように、規制を受けている会社に所属していることについてオンラインでの開示を怠る者は、法的責任を負う場合があります。



米国外で適用される法律も、有償の寄稿の非開示を禁止している場合があります。欧州連合不正な商慣行に関する指令 (およびそれに対応する各国の指令)は、「業者が販売促進のために支払いを行った編集コンテンツを、当該コンテンツで、または消費者が明確に識別できる画像や音声によってその事実を明確にすることなく、製品を宣伝するためにメディアで使用する」慣行、および、「業者がその取引、ビジネス、技能あるいは専門的職業に関連する目的のために活動していないという印象を不正に主張したり、生み出したりする、または自分自身を消費者として偽る」慣行を禁止しています。 [4]EU加盟国の国の法令も、現地の競争法を通してなど、有償の寄稿の非開示を厳しく制限する場合があり、同じような理由で、各国の裁判所がウィキペディア上で適切な方法で所属を開示することを怠ることを違反と見る場合があります。読者への通知が保証されるよう記事そのものにおいて企業による開示を求めるなど、政府当局がウィキペディアでは実行不可能な開示方法を要求する可能性もありますが、そういった場合ウィキメディアのサイトでは有償の寄稿は不可能となります。




問題が起きて困ることにならないよう、有償の受託寄稿に関する各ローカルポリシーに従ってください (例:英語版ウィキペディアの場合はConflict of interestなど)。

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.









これは、ウィキメディア・プロジェクトにある方針を変更しなければならないことを意味しますか ?







雇用主、所属 (例:~の従業員、社員、党員、会員など)、顧客を関連するトークページに記載します。記載のタイミングは編集または寄稿を保存する前でも、直後でも構いません。仮にあなたが「ミドル高校」の教師で、報酬の対象となる職務の一環としてウィキペディアのページを編集するのであれば、例としてトークページに「ミドル高校の給与を受け取る職務の一環としてこの記事を [XX月XX日] に編集しました」や「私が行った本ページの編集は、ミドル高校の職員としての編集です」などと記載します。



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.


  1. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45 連邦取引委員会法,
  2. Federal Trade Commission Act; 16 C.F.R. §255.5、例 8、p.12
  3. パリーノ対ビッドラック社訴訟(Parino v. Bidrack, Inc.), 838 F. Supp. 2d 900, 905 (カリフォルニア州北部地区連邦 地方裁判所、2011年)(被告によるウェブサイト上の偽のレビューの作成と使用を含む、原告の申し立てには、カリフォルニア州の不当競争法および虚偽広告に関する法律のもとで訴訟を起こすのに十分な証拠があった)をご覧ください。
  4. 欧州議会、指令 2005/29/EC ((添付書類I、ポイント11および22).